MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Audit Sistem Informasi Absensi Menggunakan Cobit 5 (Studi Kasus ; PT. PLN Persero Binjai)

2024· article· en· W4404493196 on OpenAlexaff
Debby Ade prastiwi, Desiska Natalia Br purba, Farida hanum, Nurul qadarsih

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Sistem Informasi dan Ilmu Komputer · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDecision Support System Applications
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCOBITAuditBusinessComputer scienceInformation technologyAccountingOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of information systems is now widely used in the business world, both in the living environment and even in the work environment, such as the use of the attendance information system at PT PLN PERSERO. Attendance in an agency is an important factor in human resource management. Accurate and objective information regarding an employee's attendance can present the quality and productivity of performance, determine the size of performance allowances and the general level of employee discipline in the agency. The process of recording and reporting employee absences is a repetitive process that is used at certain times such as entry time, departure time and holidays. It is recommended that audits of this system be carried out periodically or annually, so that the expected level of maturity can be achieved, and as a whole, not just the attendance information system, so that all aspects of work operations can also be evaluated so as to improve employee performance in general. From the results of the maturity level assessment, several findings were obtained in each domain studied, namely with the EDM03 domain having a value of 3.00, it was found that information and data security problems needed to be improved, with the EMD05 domain having a value of 2.93, problems were found that there were no written regulations that could be used as a reference, with domain AP015 with a value of 3.13 found a problem that there was still a difference between cost allocation and actual costs with domain 1P012 with a value of 3.07, a problem was found that there were no risk response regulations available, with domain DSS02 with a value of 3.13 there were no written regulations that could be used as a reference.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.042

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designObservational
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 Sistem Informasi dan Ilmu KomputerSame topicDecision Support System ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207