PERKEMBANGAN KEMAMPUAN BAHASA ANAK USIA 4-5 TAHUN MELALUI BERCERITA SEDERHANA DITINJAU DARI SEGI ASPEK SINTAKSIS DAN SEMANTIK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of language skills in children aged 4-5 years often experience obstacles in conversation, delivery or expression and talking to other people. The problem that occurs in children aged 4-5 years in the A6 group RA Muslimat NU Masyithoh 05 Banyurip Ageng Pekalongan City is that the development of children's language skills in terms of syntactic and semantic aspects of children is still not well developed. The purpose of simple storytelling activities is to determine the development of children's language skills, especially in the syntactic and semantic aspects. The research method uses a qualitative descriptive method. The research site is at RA Muslimat NU Masyithoh 05 Banyurip Ageng, Pekalongan City. The research period is from May 29 to June 11, 2021. The research subjects were 2 students in group A6 with an age range of 4-5 years with data sources from 15 students. Data collection techniques using observation, interviews, and documentation. The results of a study conducted for approximately 2 weeks with a sample of 2 children showed that through simple storytelling, children aged 4-5 years old could develop language skills.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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".