Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui sejauh mana desain Rencana Pelaksanaan Pembelajaran (RPP) di SMAN I Lembah Gumanti memuat indikator keterampilan berpikir tingkat tinggi.Jenis penelitian ini adalah deskriptif dengan pendekatan kualitatif yang menggunakan dokumen sebagai objek kajian. Data atau sumber data yang dipakai dalam penelitan ini adalah RPP guru pembelajran Geografi. Instrument penelitan, peneliti sendiri sebagai instrumennya yang menggunakan metode dokumentasi, dan wawancara selanjutnya teknik analisis data yang digunakan adalah teknik analisis data deskriptif kualitatif. Berdasarkan hasil analisis RPP guru pada pembelajaran Geografi tahun ajaran 2019-2020 Semester ganjil Berdasarkan hasil analisis penelitian Rencana Pelaksanaan Pembelajaran guru mata pelajaran Geografi bahwa desain RPP guru mata pelajaran Geografi sudah dalam penerapan keterampilan berpikir tingkat tinggi hal ini dilihat dari metode dan model pembelajaran serta langkah-langkah pembelajaran. Namun dalam pada IPK ditentukan oleh level kata kerja operasional (KKO) yang digunakan yaitu C1–C3 adalah LOTS/MOTS dan C4-C6 adalah HOTS. Yang mana belum sepenuhnya kedalam kategori HOTS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.379 | 0.207 |
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".