MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416194566 · doi:10.55123/insologi.v4i5.5855

Gambaran Cakupan Imunisasi Dasar Lengkap (IDL) di Puskesmas Kadungora Garut Tahun 2024

2025· article· W4416194566 on OpenAlexaff
Nita Kardilah

Bibliographic record

VenueINSOLOGI Jurnal Sains dan Teknologi · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Quality and Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsPurdue Pharma (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotavirusPublic healthPopulationImmunizationImmunization programPrimary health care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Complete Basic Immunization (CBI) coverage is a crucial indicator in the effort to prevent vaccine-preventable diseases and reflects the performance of primary healthcare services. In 2024, Garut Regency recorded a CBI coverage rate of 78.29%, while Kadungora Public Health Center reported the lowest rate at 65.07%. This study aims to describe the CBI coverage at Kadungora Public Health Center during the year 2024. The research used a quantitative descriptive method with a secondary data analysis approach. The population and the sample consisted of 813 infants who received immunizations and were recorded at Kadungora PHC between January and December 2024. The results showed coverage for each type of immunization as follows: HB-0 (71,7%), BCG (90%), DPT-HB-Hib 1–3 (91%,92,3%,91,9%), OPV 1–4 (90.3%,91,5%,92,1%,91%), IPV 1–2 (81,4%,70,6%), MR (91,1), PCV I–II (81,1%,82,2%), and Rotavirus I–III (58.18%–69.13%). The lowest coverage was found in HB 0, Rotavirus and IPV immunizations. These findings highlight the need for targeted interventions to improve CBI coverage, particularly for vaccines with the lowest achievement rates, in order to meet the national immunization coverage targets more evenly.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

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 studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.002

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.330 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINSOLOGI Jurnal Sains dan TeknologiSame topicHealthcare Quality and SatisfactionFrench-language works237,207