Strategi penanganan korban kekerasan seksual pada perempuan oleh Dinas Pemberdayaan Perempuan, Perlindungan Anak, Pengendalian Penduduk dan Keluarga Berencana Kabupaten Karanganyar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to analyze: 1) What is the strategy for handling victims of sexual violence against women by the Office of Women's Empowerment, Child Protection, Population Control and Family Planning, Karanganyar Regency. 2) What are the problems encountered in handling victims of sexual violence against women and the solutions. In this study using qualitative research methods. In this study the results were found: 1) strategies for handling victims of sexual violence against women by the Office of Women's Empowerment, Child Protection, Population Control and Family Planning in Karanganyar Regency, namely (1) receiving reports, (2) outreach to victims, (3) case processing, ( 4) mediation, (5) medical, psychological, legal assistance, (6) psychological and trauma recovery. 2) The problems encountered in handling victims of sexual violence against women and their solutions are (1) lack of companion staff, namely by engaging other institutions that have the same goals, (2) victims who are not open, overcome with refreshing minds, (3) families who lack cooperative given an understanding, (4) the lack of understanding of the community about the agency that handles cases of sexual violence, overcome by conducting socialization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".