MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

JAVA TRADITIONAL COMMUNITY WEDDING CEREMONY TRADITION IN BANDAR JAWA III HUTA, BANDAR SUB-DISTRICT, SIMALUNGUN REGENCY

2022· article· en· W4221109965 on OpenAlexaff
Sutikno Sutikno, Harianto II, Rahmat Kartolo, Rosmawati Harahap, Rahmadi Ali

Bibliographic record

VenueSosiohumaniora · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural and Artistic Studies
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCeremonyProcessionDocumentationJavaMalayArtVisual artsHistoryAncient historyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research aimed at describe the tradition of the Javanese traditional community wedding ceremony at Huta III Bandar Jawa, Bandar Subdistrict, Simalungun Regency. This research used descriptive qualitative approach. The results of the research were carried out by observation, interviews, and documentation. This research found that the Javanese traditional wedding tradition in Huta III generally consists of eleven processions, namely 1) peningsetan, 2) saserahan, 3) pasangtarub or tratag, 4) malamlamaran, 5) kerik-an, 6) ijabkabul, 7) temumanten, 8) lemparsirih, 9) injaktelur (wijidadi), 10) sungkeman, 11) tepungtawar and marhaban. The tradition of Javanese traditional ceremonies in Huta III is not the same as the wedding traditions in Central Java, there are several traditions or processions that have been abandoned. Not only that, the Javanese traditional wedding tradition in Huta III has now experienced a combination or acculturation of the surrounding culture, one of the acculturations of the Malay culture which has now been adopted or carried out by the Javanese people of Huta III in the Javanese traditional wedding procession.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSosiohumanioraSame topicCultural and Artistic StudiesFrench-language works237,207