MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396839473 · doi:10.35967/jkms.v12i1.7507

Analisis Resepsi Audience Mengenai Quarter Life Crisis pada Lagu “Takut” Karya Idgitaf

2023· article· id· W4396839473 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hanifah Rahmanita, Ismandianto Ismandianto

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Ilmu Komunikasi · 2023
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Research and Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtQuarter (Canadian coin)PsychologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lagu ini menceritakan bagaimana ketakutan untuk menjadi dewasa, akan tetapi harus tetap melangkah demi meraih mimpi-mimpinya. Kondisi inilah yang disebut sebagai quarter life crisis. khalayak yang mendengarkan lagu ini menciptakan pemaknaan yang berbeda sesuai latar belakang yang dimiliki. Penelitian ini merupakan jenis penelitian deskriptif kualitatif yang berfokus pada analisis resepsi. Adapun data penelitian diperoleh dengan cara melalui proses observasi, wawancara mendalam dan dokumentasi dengan delapan orang informan yang dipilih dengan teknik purposive. Hasil penelitian yang pertama menunjukkan bahwa tujuh dari delapan informan meresepsi atau setuju dengan pesan yang disampaikan (dominant) mengenai quarter life crisis pada lagu “Takut” karya Idgitaf. Kedua, beberapa informan yang setuju dengan pesan yang disampaikan dalam lagu tersebut, memberikan beberapa pengecualian (negotiated). Kemudian yang ketiga, pada penelitian ini terdapat tiga dari delapan informan yang berada dalam posisi menolak (oppositional) dari beberapa pesan quarter life crisis pada lagu tersebut, berdasarkan referensi yang mereka miliki.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Ilmu KomunikasiSame topicEducational Research and MethodsFrench-language works237,207