MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116340341 · doi:10.34305/ezxx8x02

Perbandingan pijat bayi menggunakan minyak zaitun dan lavender terhadap durasi tidur pada bayi

2025· article· W7116340341 on OpenAlexaff
M. U. Jamil, Asep Mulyana, Fitriani Mardiana, Novianti Rizki Amalia, Ai Rahmawati

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Midwifery Care · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNeonatal skin health care
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLavenderPreterm laborStatistical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Latar Belakang: Bayi membutuhkan tidur berkualitas untuk mendukung pematangan otak yang berlangsung selama tidur Rapid Eye Movement (REM). Kurangnya tidur dapat mengganggu proses tersebut dan memengaruhi hormon pertumbuhan. Di Indonesia, sekitar 44,2% bayi mengalami gangguan tidur, yang sering terjadi pada pagi hari. Namun, lebih dari 72% masyarakat masih menganggap gangguan tidur sebagai masalah yang tidak serius.Metode: Jenis penelitian pra-eksperimental menggunakan metode desain kelompok pre-test-post-test. Populasinya adalah semua bayi yang berada di Wilayah Kerja Puskesmas Sukalaksana, sedangkan sampel yang digunakan adalah kuota sampling. Analisis bivariatif menggunakan uji Shapiro-Wilk dan perbandingan pre dan posttest menggunakan uji t berpasangan. Membandingkan pijat bayi dengan minyak zaitun dan lavender menggunakan uji independent t test.Hasil: Analisis bivariat menunjukkan bahwa terdapat perbandingan antara pijat bayi dengan minyak zaitun dan lavender terhadap durasi tidur pada bayi (p-value 0,000).Kesimpulan: Adanya perbedaan antara pijat bayi dengan minyak zaitun dan lavender terhadap durasi tidur pada bayi di Wilayah Kerja Puskesmas Sukalaksana Kota Tasikmalaya.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.343 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Midwifery CareSame topicNeonatal skin health careFrench-language works237,207