Penerapan Metode Apriori Pada Data Penduduk Berdasarkan Tingkat Kesejahteraan (Studi Kasus : Kantor Camat Sirapit)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Indonesian government has implemented various programs to improve public welfare; however, social assistance often misses its target, primarily due to a lack of accurate data. Sirapit Subdistrict, as a government institution, has access to important population data for policy development, particularly in the distribution of aid based on community welfare levels. Factors such as education, age, number of dependents, and income play a significant role in determining an individual's welfare. To address this issue, this study proposes the use of the Apriori method to analyze the factors affecting population welfare. The Apriori method is a data mining algorithm useful for discovering association patterns within a dataset. The study results show that with a support value of 3% and a confidence level of 100%, a pattern was found where residents with a high school education, 1-2 dependents, aged 35-45 years, earning Rp 500,000 - Rp 999,999, and with a low welfare level tend to work as laborers. These findings are expected to serve as a foundation for formulating more targeted policies to improve community welfare in Sirapit Subdistrict.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".