MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3182273014 · doi:10.34305/jmc.v1i02.255

HUBUNGAN ANTARA PELAYANAN KB IMPLAN DENGAN TINGKAT KEPUASAN AKSEPTOR KB IMPLAN DI WILAYAH KERJA PUSKESMAS MANDIRANCAN KABUPATEN KUNINGAN

2021· article· id· W3182273014 on OpenAlexaff
Nova Winda Setiati, Ai Nurasiah, Indri Yuliani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Midwifery Care · 2021
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Quality and Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pelayanan KB IUD adalah bagaimana akseptor dilayani oleh suatu sistem yang memberikan pelayanan KB IUD yang akan menjamin bahwa klien dilayani dengan tanggung jawab dan perhatian. Tujuan dari penelitian ini untuk mengidentifikasi pelayanan KB, mengidentifikasi tingkat kepuasan dan menganalisis adakah hubungan antara pelayanan KB dengan tingkat kepuasan akseptor KB implan di Wilayah Kerja Puskesmas Mandirancan. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis hubungan antara pelayanan KB implan dengan tingkat kepuasan pada akseptor KB implan di Wilayah Kerja Puskesmas Mandirancan Kabupaten Kuningan. Jenis penelitian ini menggunakan penelitian analitik dengan rancangan cross sectional. Populasi penelitian ini yaitu seluruh akseptor di Wilayah Kerja Puskesmas Mandirancan dengan jumlah akseptor KB implan 128 yang diambil secara total sampling instrumen penelitian ini menggunakan kuesioner. Analisis data menggunakan analisis univariat dan bivariat diuji secara chi square. Hasil penelitian didapatkan dari 82 responden dengan pelayanan yang baik sebagian besar tingkat kepuasan dalam pelayanan KB implan yaitu memuaskan (69,5%). Berdasarkan hasil uji statistik diperoleh nilai p yaitu 0,000 dengan tingkat kemaknaan 0,05 maka dapat disimpulkan bahwa nilai p yaitu 0,000 < 0,05, sehingga Ho ditolak artinya ada hubungan yang signifikan antara pelayanan KB implan terhadap kepuasan akseptor KB implan di Wilayah Kerja Puskesmas Mandirancan Kabupaten Kuningan.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.012

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Midwifery CareSame topicHealthcare Quality and SatisfactionFrench-language works237,207