MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161751070 · doi:10.33299/jpkop.23.1.1674

Kerukunan dalam Komunikasi Antar Kelompok Agama Islam dan Hindu di Lombok

2019· article· en· W3161751070 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJURNAL PENELITIAN KOMUNIKASI DAN OPINI PUBLIK · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Finance and Communication
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmony (color)HinduismIslamMulticulturalismSociologyGender studiesGeographyReligious studiesPedagogyArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is not easy to reach a harmonious society in a multicultural country, the absence of good communication between stakeholders and groups that are related can create conflict. One of the key variables in fostering and realizing harmony is tolerance. The Lombok region which is the majority inhabited by Muslim communities can live in harmony and side by side with Hindu community. Based on the data obtained, Lombok is the city with the highest level of tolerance. This study examines how harmony can be created there and how the role of communication in creating harmony and communication between the two groups of different religions. This research was conducted with qualitative methods with a case study approach. Research data was obtained from interviews and observations. The results show that Hindu groups in Lombok live in the Lingsar region and in the area get along well because there are several factors, namely time, intermarriage, religion, and interaction. Communication also has a role in creating harmony because the basic condition of interaction is the existence of communication.Keywords : coordinated management of meaning

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it