MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400965292 · doi:10.25078/anubhava.v4i1.3558

PROBLEMATIKA KOMUNIKASI KELUARGA DAN PENANGGULANGANNYA Komparasi Konsep Tri Kaya Parisudha dan Gottmans Horsemen

2024· article· en· W4400965292 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueANUBHAVA Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi Hindu · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Research and Methods
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In essence, humans as social creatures cannot be separated from interaction. Everyone wants to talk, wants to express different opinions with the aim of obtaining information. This creates a process called communication. Communication was a very common thing in ancient times, even in prehistoric times. It's just that at that time communication was done in a different way, and of course communication at that time was done in a very simple way. In line with the development of time and human civilization, communication models are experiencing rapid development day by day. In the beginning, before the discovery of electronic media as a source of communication, people communicated by making simple tools made from improvised materials and tools such as gongs. Some people in the past and perhaps even today know of a form of communication through the sound of a gong. Through the sound of the gong, it is symbolized as a symbol of past communication, and most of it is one-sided, so it can be said that there are not many components involved in communication. This process only involves one person or group of people as the communicator and another party as the listener. It was different when the reform era began and various innovations emerged from both communication experts and practitioners. Communication is a need and an important means to get to know yourself and others. Who we are and how we interact with others is discovered through communication. Without us realizing it, we carry out these communication activities in every activity of our lives. Through communication we will understand ourselves and others so that we can develop our self-understanding in family and community relationships and develop shared concepts in the social environment. In fact, we can find small communication groups that often occur every day in the family environment in husband-wife relationships. Even though communication always occurs in every interaction in human life, not every communication that occurs can lead to understanding. And it is not uncommon for every communication carried out to give rise to debates and discrepancies between each other due to differences in understanding of each communication participant.

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.358 · 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