MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223517743 · doi:10.30996/jhp17.v7i1.3101

Menguak Realitas Jejak “Goah” Sebagai Simbol Sakralitas Pertanian Di Desa Ciasmara Kecamatan Pamijahan Kabupaten Bogor

2022· article· en· W4223517743 on OpenAlexaff
Raden Atang Supriatna, Yogaprasta Adi Nugraha

Bibliographic record

VenueJHP17 (Jurnal Hasil Penelitian) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural and Artistic Studies
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureCommodityGeographyValue (mathematics)Agricultural economicsAgricultural scienceBusinessMathematicsEconomicsArchaeologyEnvironmental scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agriculture is one of the important sectors that contribute to national income. However, agricultural development currently has a tendency to increase productivity so that it impacts on the agricultural system which tends to make agriculture is more just an activity that produces agricultural "commodities" Mainstreaming agriculture into "commodity agriculture" has an impact on the destruction of cultural infrastructure supporting agriculture. This study aims to: Identify "Goah" in Ciasmara Village, Pamijahan District, Bogor Regency. This study uses a Rapid-Ethnography approach, located in the village of Ciasmara, Pamijahan District, Bogor Regency from March 2019 - August 2019. This research found that in Ciasmara village there is still a "goah", but its form is no longer limited to a special space where to place rice but the "Goah" has transformed into another form such as a bucket or a special drum. The transformation form of the "Goah" is a result of the limitations of domestic space and the shift in the value of agricultural sacredity in the village.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJHP17 (Jurnal Hasil Penelitian)Same topicCultural and Artistic StudiesFrench-language works237,207