HUBUNGAN ANTARA KUALITAS PERSAHABATAN DENGAN PENERIMAAN DIRI PADA MAHASISWA YANG KULIAH DI JURUSAN YANG TIDAK DIINGINKAN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A good quality of friendship is needed so that students have good self-acceptance, with good self-acceptance students will direct themselves to find new achievements, become competent people, and avoid frustration. This study uses a correlational quantitative method and aims to determine the relationship between the quality of friendship and self-acceptance of students who study in undesirable majors. The subjects of this study were students who were still actively studying but in undesirable majors. The sampling technique in this study used a snowball sampling technique. The instrument used was the quality scale of friendship namely McGill friendship questionnaire-FF and self-acceptance. Data analyzed using product moment Pearson correlation. Based on the results of the analysis obtained a significant value of 0,000 (p <0.05) which indicates that there is a significant relationship with the positive direction between the quality of friendship and the self-acceptance of students who study in undesirable majors Based on the coefficient of determination shows that the contribution of the quality of friendship to self-acceptance of students who study in undesirable majors is 8.6%, which means there are 91.4% of other factors that can affect self-acceptance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".