MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199375439 · doi:10.52851/cakrawala.v3i2.52

Analisis Cost Volume Profit untuk Perencanaan Laba pada Restoran Praline & Oregano

2021· article· en· W3199375439 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leviandi Adhie, Vinny Stefanie Sukmajaya

Bibliographic record

VenueCakrawala Repositori IMWI · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Agroindustry Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Profit marginGross profitGross marginProfit (economics)BusinessAgricultural scienceMathematicsEconomicsMarketingEnvironmental scienceGeographyFinanceMicroeconomicsProfitability index

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to determine how the analysis of cost volume profit for profit planning Praline & Oregano Restaurants. The research methodology used in this study is a descriptive study by analyzing the financial statements of Praline & Oregano Restaurants with a time span of 2Q 2017 - 1Q 2019 using cost volume profit analysis. The results found that the highest contribution margin occurred in the category Other drinks which included Dilmah, ice tea, and mineral water and Fussion Bite food categories which included Acapulco Tori, Paneer Dori With Kuah Padeh, Crispy Yakitori, and Yummy Tandoori. This study also found that the Break Even Point of Praline & Oregano restaurants in each quarter from quarter 2 2017 to quarter 2 2019 was always achieved with a nominal range of Rp. 89,211,165 - Rp. 186,159,079 this happens because the sales generated are greater than the break-even sales. This study also found that the Margin Of Safety is known to experience a fluctuating increase in the ratio of 62-76% which indicates that the company always benefits. This study calculates Praline & Oregano's profit target will get a profit of Rp. 274,925,768 in the 3rd quarter of 2019.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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 venueCakrawala Repositori IMWISame topicAgriculture and Agroindustry StudiesFrench-language works237,207