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 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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".