Hubungan Regulasi diri dengan Prokrastinasi Akademik Mahasiswa Magister yang bekerja pada Perguruan Tinggi Surabaya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penelitian meta-analisis oleh Steel (2007) di Universitas Calgary bahwa 80% hingga 95% mahasiswa melakukan prokrastinasi, terutama saat melakukan tugas kuliah. Pada penelitian Klassen, Krawchuk dan Rajani (2008) di universitas Kanada juga menghasilkan data bahwa prokrastinasi pada siswa terkait dengan tingkat regulasi diri yang lebih rendah.Dalam penelitian ini, ditemukan bahwa siswa dengan kemampuan untuk mengatur diri yang rendah memiliki IPK yang lebih rendah,dan lebih banyak menunda..Tujuan penelitian ini untuk mengetahui mengenai hubungan prokrastinasi akademik dengan regulasi diri mahasiswa. metode penelitian kuantitatif.Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian kuantitatif dengan menggunakan metode survey. Hasil yang didapatkan menunjukkan nilai signifikansi 0,000 (p<0,05).Hasil tersebut menunjukkan adanya korelasi negatif antara prokrastinasi akademik dengan regulasi diri dan menunjukkan hubungan yang signifikan.Sehingga ada hubungan yang signifikan prokrastinasi akademik dengan regulasi diri mahasiswa magister yang bekerja.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".