MODEL PEMBERDAYAAN MASYARAKAT TERHADAP PERENCANAAN PEMBANGUNAN DESA CARAWALI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to determine the community empowerment model for the implementation of development planning in carawali village, to find out whot factors were supporting and inhibiting community empowerment in the implementation of development planning in carawali villagr. The population of this study was 644 families, while the research sample was 87 families. Data collection techniques used in the study were observation, questionnaires and literature study, while the data analysis technique used was likert-scale data analysis. The collected data is then analyzed using a frequency table and using the SPSS application. The result of the research on community empowerment models for development planning in Carawali village, Wattang Pulu district, Sidenreng Rappang regency with an average value of 74,75% in the good category. The supporting factors for community empowerment on development planning in Carawali Village, Watang Pulu dictrict sidenreng rappang regency with a percentage of 57% while the inhibiting factors for community empowerment on development planning in Carawali Village, Wattang pulu district with a percentage of 49,4.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".