MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400289198 · doi:10.57248/jishum.v2i4.416

Faktor - Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Jumlah Balita Stunting di Kota Yogyakarta

2024· article· id· W4400289198 on OpenAlexaff
Dhinta Ekka Wardhani, Salsabila Afra Safitri, Agus Salim

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldMedicine
TopicPublic Health and Nutrition
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stunting merupakan masalah gizi kronis akibat kurangnya asupan gizi dalam jangka waktu panjang sehingga mengakibatkan terganggunya pertumbuhan pada anak. Stunting juga menjadi salah satu penyebab tinggi badan anak terhambat, sehingga lebih rendah dibandingkan anak-anak seusianya. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mencari tahu bagaimana sebenarnya pengaruh perubahan persentase bayi mendapat asi eksklusif, persentase balita memperoleh imunisasi dasar lengkap, dan persentase balita kurang gizi mendapat tambahan asupan gizi terhadap jumlah balita stunting di Kota Yogyakarta Tahun 2023. Pada penelitian ini pendekatan yang digunakan adalah pendekatan kuantitatif. Data yang digunakan dalam paper ini adalah data sekunder yang didapatkan melalui Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah (Bappeda) Kota Yogyakarta, jurnal, dokumentasi pemerintah, atau publikasi pemerintah, dokumentasi suatu lembaga, dan analisis deskriptif dari media, serta yang lainnya. Data diolah dan dianalisis dengan menggunakan uji regresi binomial negatif dan memperoleh persamaan Y = 4,847817 - 0,0051711X1 - 0,0092116X2 - 0,0040159X3 + ϵ. Berdasarkan dari hasil penelitian ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa perubahan persentase bayi mendapat asi eksklusif, persentase balita memperoleh imunisasi dasar lengkap, dan persentase balita kurang gizi mendapat tambahan asupan gizi memiliki pengaruh yang tidak signifikan terhadap jumlah balita stunting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.302 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora.Same topicPublic Health and NutritionFrench-language works237,207