MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402072653 · doi:10.36869/pjhpish.v9i1.281

MAKNA FILOSOFI MAKANAN TRADISIONAL BANNANG-BANNANG PADA UPACARA ADAT DI KABUPATEN GOWA

2024· article· id· W4402072653 on OpenAlexaff
Raodah Raodah

Bibliographic record

VenuePangadereng Jurnal Hasil Penelitian Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora · 2024
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood and Agricultural Sciences
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Penelitian yang bertujuan mendeskripsikan makna filosofi kue tradisional bannang-bannang sebagai sajian dalam berbagai upacara adat pada masyarakat di Kabupaten Gowa. Bannang-bannang merupakan karya budaya yang menjadi warisan leluhur yang perlu dilestarikan, untuk mendapatkan sertifikasi sebagai warisan budaya tak benda, sebagai objek pemajuan kebudayaan dalam Undang-Undang Pemajuan Kebudayaan Nomor 5 Tahun 2017. Kue tradisional bannang-bannang memiliki nilai-nilai budaya dan pengetahuan lokal secara komunal dimiliki masyarakat Gowa. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode deskriptif kualitatif dengan teknik pengumpulan data melalui wawancara, observasi dan dokumentasi dan dianalisis secara kualitatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kue tradisional bannang-bannang merupakan kue tradisional yang selalu disajikan dalam berbagai upacara adat pada masyarakat di Kabupaten Gowa utamanya pada upacara perkawinan adat, karena kue tradisional bannang-bannang memiliki makna filosofi dan simbol kebahagian dalam kehidupan rumah tangga. Bagi masyarakat luar, kue bannang-bannang biasanya dijadikan oleh-oleh ketika berkunjung ke Makassar, karena kue tradisional ini dapat bertahan lama.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.005

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designQualitative
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 venuePangadereng Jurnal Hasil Penelitian Ilmu Sosial dan HumanioraSame topicFood and Agricultural SciencesFrench-language works237,207