MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3182417811 · doi:10.35328/kesmas.v10i1.1594

WAWASAN IBU MENYUSUI TENTANG STUNTING DI WILAYAH KERJA UPT PUSKESMAS PENGALIHAN KECAMATAN ENOK KABUPATEN INDRAGIRI HILIR

2021· article· id· W3182417811 on OpenAlexaff
Yulia Febrianita, Putri Wulandini

Bibliographic record

VenueAl-Tamimi Kesmas · 2021
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldMedicine
TopicPublic Health and Nutrition
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhysicsGynecologyMedicineArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stunting dapat diartikan suatu kondisi gagal tumbuh pada anak balita akibat dari kekurangan gizi kronis sehingga anak menjadi terlalu pendek untuk usianya. Tidak terlaksananya inisiasi menyusu dini (IMD), gagalnya pemberian air susu ibu (ASI) eksklusif, dan proses penyapihan dini dapat menjadi salah satu faktor terjadinya stunting. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui wawasan ibu menyusui tentang stunting di wilayah kerja UPT Puskesmas Pengalihan Kecamatan Enok Kabupaten Indragiri Hilir. Jenis penelitian ini bersifat deskriptif. Populasi dalam penelitian ini adalah seluruh ibu menyusui diwilayah kerja UPT Puskesmas Pengalihan Enok sebanyak 102 orang. Sampel yang digunakan sebanyak 81 Ibu menyusui. Tehnik pengambilan samapel adalah dengan random sampel. Instrumen penelitian menggunakan kuesioner. Data yang didapat diolah secara manual dan disajikan dalam bentuk table. Hasil penelitian diperoleh 41 responden (50,62%) memiliki wawasan kurang tentang stunting. Maka disimpulkan wawasan ibu menyusui di wilayah kerja UPT puskesmas penglihan enok kurang. Disarankan kepada masyarakat khususnya ibu menyusui hendaknya rajin mencari informasi baik dari media elektronik maupun dengan ikut kegiatan-kegiatan penyuluhan kesehatan.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.007

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAl-Tamimi KesmasSame topicPublic Health and NutritionFrench-language works237,207