Pengaruh model pembelajaran creative problem solving (CPS) terhadap hasil belajar fisika dan kemampuan berpikir kreatif peserta didik
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to determine The Effect of Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model on Physics Outcomes In Terms Of Learning and Creative Thinking Ability. This research was carried out at SMAN 88 Jakarta. This research method used is Pre Experimental Design with One Group Pretest-Posttest research design, sampling technique used is the Simple Random Sampling technique so that everyone has the same opportunity. The population of this study was 36 students in the experimental class after the data were normally distributed and homogenous based on normality test using Liliefors Galat Taksiran and homogeneity tests using Barlett Test, and hypothesis testing using t-test. Based on the calculation results obtained , and the homogeneity calculation results obtained while the results of hypothesis testing at a significant level a = 0.05 obtained and at a = 0.01 with . Then Ho is which mean that there is influence of Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model On Physics Outcomes In Terms Of Learning and Creative Thinking Ability.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".