MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2024· article· en· W4404493196 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

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.007

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