Analisa Audit Sistem Informasi Perpustakaan STMIK KAPUTAMA Menggunakan FrameWork COBIT 4.0
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perpustakaan STMIK KAPUTAMA adalah perpustakaan yang berada di Universitas STMIK Kaputama di Binjai yang menyediakan layanan informasi seperti buku, majalah, dan karya ilmiah. Dalam perkembangan Perpustakaan STMIK Kaputama, telah digunakan aplikasi sistem informasi yang terintegrasi untuk mendukung aktivitas operasionalnya. Namun, beberapa aplikasi yang ada belum dimanfaatkan secara optimal. Oleh karena itu, diperlukan audit sistem informasi untuk mengevaluasi penggunaannya. Dalam penelitian ini, COBIT 4.0 digunakan sebagai standar dalam pelaksanaan audit, karena COBIT adalah standar audit yang dapat digunakan untuk mengelola perencanaan teknologi informasi. Penerapan COBIT dilakukan melalui wawancara, yang datanya kemudian diproses untuk menentukan model kematangan dan dianalisis menggunakan SWOT. Hasil dari penelitian ini menghasilkan rekomendasi dan temuan untuk perbaikan sistem informasi di Perpustakaan STMIK Kaputama.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".