PENGARUH PENDIDIKAN SEKS TERHADAP PENGETAHUAN \nTENTANG ORGAN REPRODUKSI PADA REMAJA \nDISABILITAS (TUNADAKSA) DI SMP DAN SMA \nSLB NEGERI 1 BANTUL YOGYAKARTA
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
Pendidikan seks bagi anak berkebutuhan khusus kini menjadi sebuah \nkebutuhan. Perihal tersebut selain didasarkan secara filosofis maupun yuridis, \npendidikan seks merupakan upaya preventif agar setiap anak berkebutuhan khusus \ndapat mengenali, memahami dan mengelola perkembangan dan perubahan secara \nbiologis pada dirinya, serta tidak terjebak pada perilaku seks yang menyimpang \nataupun mendapatkan kekerasan dan pelecehan seks dari orang lain \nMetode penelitian ini menggunakan pre-experimental dengan desain onegroup \npretest-posttest. Populasi adalah remaja tunadaksa di SMP dan SMA SLB \nNegeri 1 Bantul berjumlah 30 orang. Teknik pengambilan sampel menggunakan Total \nsampling. Sampel sebanyak 30 responden dengan metode pengumpulan data primer \nmenggunakan kuesioner pretest dan posttest. Analisis data menggunakan uji statistic \nWilcoxon Matchet Pairts.. \nAda pengaruh pendidikan seks terhadap pengetahuan tentang organ reproduksi \npada remaja disabilitas (tuna daksa) di SLB Negeri 1 Bantul dengan p value = 0,006 \n(<0,05) dengan taraf signifikan 5%. Diharapkan peneliti selanjutnya dapat \nmemberikan pendidikan tentang perilaku seks pranikah di kalangan remaja disabilitas \ntuna daksa
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.022 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 it