Analisis Kesesuaian Rencana Kerja Anggaran Sekolah (RKAS) Terhadap Laporan Pertanggungjawaban Tahun 2019 dan 2020 Pada UPTD SMPN 2 Pangkalanbaru
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTBudget Plan is on estimate that will be used to carry out an activity and it is very important to do. By therefore, this study aims to determine how the suitability of budget work plan of UPTD SMPN 2 Pangkalanbaru with Accountability Reports for 2019 and 2020. In this study, the researcher used the Qualitative Descriptive Method because, the researcher wanted to describe the analysis of the suitability of the RKAS with the Accountability Report, and find out the obstacles and solutions made in the implementation of the budget at UPTD SMPN 2 Pangkalanbaru. After doing the research, the results of this study shows that the suitability of the RKAS with the Report Realization, the accountability plan has Both with 90% conformity percentage in 2019 and 99% in 2020, it means an increase of 9%. Keywords: Compliance, Accountability Report, Budget Plan  ABSTRAKRencana Anggaran merupakan perkiraan yang akan digunakan untuk melaksanakan suatu kegiatan dan hal tersebut sangat penting untuk dilakukan. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui bagaimana kesesuaian rencana kerja anggaran sekolah dengan Laporan Pertanggungjawab tahun 2019 dan 2020. Dalam penelitian ini, peneliti menggunakan Metode Deskriptif Kualitatif karena, peneliti ingin mendeskripsikan analisis kesesuaian RKAS dengan Laporan Pertanggungjawabn, serta mengetahui hambatan dan solusi yang dilakukan dalam implementasi realisasi rencana anggaran di SMPN 2 Pangkalanbaru. Setelah dilakukan penelitian, hasil dari dari penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa kesesuaian RKAS dengan Laporan Pertanggungjawaban sudah Baik dengan persentase 90% di tahun 2019 dan 99% di tahun 2020, artinya mengalami peningkatan 9%. Kata kunci:   Kesesuaian, Laporan Pertanggungjawaban, Rencana Kerja
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".