MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411592830 · doi:10.24246/jms.v5i22024p151-161

Promosi Kesehatan: Perilaku Hidup Bersih dan Sehat (PHBS) pada Lansia di Puskesmas Cebongan Salatiga

2025· article· id· W4411592830 on OpenAlexaff
Rriwu Raun Essing, Rosiana Eva Rayanti, Istananda Tirtaning Nugraheni, Devara Kevin Yuandi, Sri Rahayu, Beatriks Ndapamerang, Anwar Kristian Zai, Joten Salawala, Eta Gelina T. Bidana, Desi Payumka

Bibliographic record

VenueMagistrorum et Scholarium Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat · 2025
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldMedicine
TopicPublic Health and Nutrition
Canadian institutionsCarbon Engineering (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Masih banyak rumah tangga yang belum menerapkan Perilaku Hidup Bersih dan Sehat (PHBS), khususnya pada lansia. Penerapan PHBS pada lansia dinilai belum memadai, yakni sebesar 53,34%, terutama disebabkan oleh rendahnya tingkat kebersihan diri. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk meningkatkan kesadaran dan promosi penerapan Perilaku Hidup Bersih dan Sehat (PHBS) pada lansia di wilayah kerja Puskesmas Cebongan. Melalui kegiatan pengabdian kepada masyarakat, telah dilakukan edukasi tentang Perilaku Hidup Bersih dan Sehat (PHBS) kepada 31 lansia melalui kegiatan ceramah, demonstrasi, dan tanya jawab. Hasil pra kegiatan menunjukkan bahwa sebagian besar peserta telah menerapkan PHBS, namun pemahaman tentang dimensi PHBS masih perlu ditingkatkan. Setelah kegiatan, peserta menunjukkan antusiasme yang tinggi dalam menerapkan PHBS, khususnya dalam praktik cuci tangan. Berdasarkan data kuesioner, sebanyak 30 dari 31 lansia (96,8%) menyatakan selalu menerapkan PHBS, namun perlu dilakukan analisis lebih lanjut. Kesimpulannya, kegiatan edukasi diperlukan untuk meningkatkan kualitas kesehatan lansia

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.005

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagistrorum et Scholarium Jurnal Pengabdian MasyarakatSame topicPublic Health and NutritionFrench-language works237,207