Pengembangan Program Pembinaan Pengawas PAI Kementerian Agama Sumatera Selatan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk melihat bagaimana pengembangan program pembinaan pengawas PAI di lingkungan Kementerian Agama Provinsi Sumatera Selatan. Permasalahan dalam penelitian ini untuk mengetahui validitas program pembinaan pengawas, menguji kepraktisan program yang dirumuskan, dan menguji efektifitas program pengembangan yang dirumuskan. Jenis penelitian ini adalah penelitian R & D dengan mengadaptasi model Meredith D. Gall Jolly and Bollito dalam Brian Tomlinson, dan Teori Martin Tessmer. Teknik pengumpulan data menggunakan dokumen, observasi, angket, dan test. Hasil penelitian dan pengembangan ini diharapkan dapat membantu pengawas dalam melaksanakan tugas untuk membimbing guru di wilayah kerja masing-masing. Keterbatasan penelitian ini, yaitu pada pelaksanaan uji coba pemakaian serta pada diseminasi dan implementasi. Maka dari itu, para peneliti yang akan melakukan penelitian tentang program diklat pengawas dapat menindaklanjuti hasil penelitian ini dengan mengatasi seluruh keterbatasan penelitian dan pengembangan yang sudah dilakukan atau memanfaatkan hasil penelitian dan pengembangan ini untuk penelitian sejenis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.010 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".