PENYUSUNAN RENCANA STRATEGIS LEMBAGA PENDIDIKAN ISLAM SISWA JENJANG PENDIDIKAN DASAR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rencana strategis merupakan bentuk upaya pihak madrasah dalam orientasi pencapaian keberhasilan pendidikan. Penelitian ini berupaya menganalisa penyusunan rencana strategis yang dilakukan oleh pihak MIS Blang Dalam. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif dengan metode studi deskriptif analitis. Pemerolehan data dilakukan menggunakan teknik wawancara mendalam, observasi partisipan dan kajian dokumen. Selanjutnya, data dianalisis menggunakan teknik pemilahan data sesuai relevansi dengan tema penelitian, kemudian disajikan dalam format kualitatif, dan diverifikasi untuk ditarik kesimpulan. Uji keabsahan data menggunakan ketekunan pengamatan dan teknik triangulasi data. Hasil penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa pertama, rencana strategis (renstra) dijadikan sebagai dasar dalam penyusunan program kelembagaan berkala (semester/tahunan) berdasarkan visi, misi, dan tujuan madrasah. Hal ini ditujukan untuk memperjelas rincian sasaran program, kebijakan internal madrasah, dan strategi pelaksanaannya. Kedua, rencana strategis sebagai dasar pelaksanaan program di MIS Blang Dalam. Ketiga, rencana strategis memiliki hubungan erat (saling berkaitan) dengan rencana operasional dalam upaya mencapai tujuan madrasah.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.028 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".