MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7126177030 · doi:10.52046/jssh.v5i1.2638

Analysis of the Implementation of Women's Empowerment Programs Through Home Industries Using George C. Edwards III's Approach in Ternate City

2025· article· W7126177030 on OpenAlexaff
Musdalifah Musdalifah

Bibliographic record

VenueJURNAL SAINS SOSIAL DAN HUMANIORA (JSSH) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Administration in Developing Nations
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpowermentBureaucracyGeorge (robot)Resource (disambiguation)Qualitative researchControl (management)Sustainable development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyzes the implementation of a women's empowerment policy through home industry programs by the Office of Women’s Empowerment and Child Protection (DP3A) in Ternate City. Employing a descriptive qualitative approach and George C. Edwards III’s policy implementation theory, the study focuses on four dimensions: communication, resources, disposition, and bureaucratic structure. The findings reveal that policy execution remains suboptimal. Communication tends to be one-directional, resource limitations persist, and inter-agency coordination is lacking. While implementers show strong commitment, fragmented bureaucracy hinders effective outcomes. The program is grounded in legal frameworks such as Regulation of the Minister of Women’s Empowerment No. 2/2016 and regional regulations issued by the Ternate City Government. This research highlights the need for enhanced two-way communication, inter-sectoral synergy, and capacity-building to ensure successful and sustainable local-level women’s empowerment initiatives.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designQualitative
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 venueJURNAL SAINS SOSIAL DAN HUMANIORA (JSSH)Same topicPublic Administration in Developing NationsFrench-language works237,207