Prospek Pengembangan Ilmu Perbandingan Agama Di Indonesia.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ilmu perbandingan agama adalah salah satu sebutan saja dari berapa sebutan terhadap “ilmu agama” (Science of Religion), “studi ilmiah agama” (Scientific Study of Religion), yang dalam perkembangan kemudian lalu orang dengan beberapa pertimbangan tertentu senang menyebutnya dengan “fenomenologi agama” (Phenomenology of Religion), “ilmu agama sistematik” (lebih dikenal dengan ” Science of Religion as a Systematic Disipline”), “sejarah agama-agama” (History of Religion(-s)), dan “ilmu perbandingan agama” (Comparative Religion, Comparative Study Of Religions) dan sebutan lainnya lagi. Pertimbangan selera penyebutan tertentu baik dengan Science of Religion, scientific a study of religion, Phenomenology of Religion, History of Religion (-s), Comparative Religion, Comparative Study Of Religions dan sebagainya- sudah barang tentu mempunyai maksud tertentu di samping ada hubungannya dengan lingkungan di mana ilmu perbandingan agama tersebut dilahirkan, tumbuh dan berkembang. Seperti di Amerika (Canada dan Amerika Utara), Eropa (Swedia, Inggris, Jerman, Prancis, Belanda, Spanyol, Italia), Asia (Jepang, India, Thailand, Indonesia), di USSR dan lain sebagainya. Juga ada hubungannya dengan lingkungan pengembangan akademik di mana ilmu perbandingan agama tersebut diasuh dalam suatu perguruan tinggi.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it