MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396972801 · doi:10.38102/jsm.v5i2.295

HUBUNGAN POLA ASUH IBU DENGAN KEJADIAN STUNTING PADA BALITA UMUR 24 - 60 BULAN DI WILAYAH KERJA PUSKESMAS PATEBON II KECAMATAN PATEBON

2023· article· en· W4396972801 on OpenAlexaff
Nabila Syafitri, Radiati Moviana, Triya Ulva Kusuma

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Surya Muda · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPublic Health and Nutrition
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parenting is the interaction of parents with children. Stunting is a toddler who has a height and height that is less when compared to age. most of the mothers work as TKW and factory workers. This study aims to determine the relationship between maternal parenting and the incidence of stunting in toddlers aged 24 - 60 months in the area of ​​the Patebon II Public Health Center, Patebon District. The research uses quantitative methods, by means of interviews, filling out questionnaires that are distributed directly. The results showed that the incidence of stunting was 25% in toddlers aged 24-60 months in the Patebon II Health Center Work Area. There is no significant relationship between variables of nutrition, hygiene, physical activity and health services to the incidence of stunting (gamma test, p> 0.05). Referring to the results of the analysis, it can be ascertained that there is no significant relationship between maternal parenting and the incidence of stunting in toddlers aged 24-60 months in the Patebon II Health Center Work Area, Patebon District. Therefore, suggestions are obtained regarding the high prevalence of stunting but health services have improved, hence the need for re-monitoring.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Surya MudaSame topicPublic Health and NutritionFrench-language works237,207