Peningkatkan Kemampuan Seni AUD Melalui Teknik Kolase Berbasis Kearifan Lokal Kota Palembang
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Art development is one aspect that needs to be paid attention to from an early age. Because art can be used as a forum for children to express their imagination and self-expression. The aim of this research is to obtain information on the use of collage techniques to improve children's artistic abilities at Kartika II-I Kindergarten. The research uses classroom action with the implementation stages adopting the Kemmis & Tagart model including 1) planning, 2) implementation, 3) observation and 4) reflection. The implementation of this model was carried out in 2 cycles, with 2 meetings in each cycle. The research subjects were 16 children aged 4-5 years at Kartika II-I Kindergarten. Researchers in collecting data used interview and observation techniques. After the data is obtained, it will be analyzed using qualitative and quantitative data analysis techniques. The research results obtained a score in pre-action of 56.5 and after action in cycle 1 of 68.1 and cycle 2 of 78.3. Thus, the researchers concluded that using collage techniques can improve children's artistic abilities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it