MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6925577107 · doi:10.18592/jtipai.v5i2.1829

PERKEMBANGAN MADRASAH DI KOTA BANJARMASIN (SEBUAH TINJAUAN HISTORIS DARI TAHUN 2010-2014)

2015· article· id· W6925577107 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrohydrodynamics and Fluid Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Economic shortageQuarter (Canadian coin)Subject (documents)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tulisan ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui perkembangan madrasah di Kota Banjarmasin dari tahun 2010–2014, yang diringkas dari hasil penelitian lapangan (field research) dengan pendekatan kuantitatif-kualitatif. Ada 15 buah madrasah yang dikaji, tersebar pada empat kecamatan, yang bervariasi jenjang (MI, MTs, MA), status (Negeri dan Swasta), organisasi pembinanya (NU dan Muhammadiyah), dan keberadaan lokasinya (satu atap dan tersendiri). Pengumpulan datanya menggunakan kuestioner, wawancara, observasi dan dokumenter. Temuan penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa perkembangan madrasah di kota Banjarmasin selama lima tahun terakhir tidak mengalami perubahan yang berarti. Perkembangan SDM, sarana dan prasarana madrasah masih kurang stabil. Walaupun kelulusan UAN siswanya telah mencapai 100 %, tetapi nilai rata-ratanya belum mendekati nilai kelulusan maksimal. Perkembangan guru dan tenaga kependidikan secara kuantitas agak mengalami stagnasi, tetapi secara kualitas cukup membanggakan. Mayoritas gurunya adalah lulusan S1 dan S2, kecuali pada madrasah swasta di mana masih terdapat guru lulusan SLTA dan Diploma. Kata kunci: madrasah, perkembangan, SDM, sarana dan prasarana

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.322 · 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
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicElectrohydrodynamics and Fluid DynamicsFrench-language works237,207