ANALISIS FAKTOR-FAKTOR YANG MEMPENGARUHI EFEKTIVITAS PENYUSUNAN RENCANA PENARIKAN DANA (STUDI KASUS PADA UNIVERSITAS NEGERI SEMARANG)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to analyze the effect of quality human resource, quality application, reward and punishment, organization management, and socialization and training on the effectiveness of the preparation of cash withdrawal planning. This research method uses primary data with a sample of 92 respondents. The analytical tool used is SmartPLS version 3.3.3. The results of the study show that the quality of human resources and reward and punishment have a positive effect on the effectiveness of the preparation of cash withdrawal planning. Application quality and organizational management have no effect on the effectiveness preparation of cash withdrawal planning. However, socialization and training have a negative effect on the effectiveness of the preparation of cash withdrawal planning.
 Keywords: cash withdrawal planning (RPD), quality human resource, quality application, reward and punishment, organization management, socialization and training
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it