Cited by 20Academic integrity and plagiarismAlgorithms and Data CompressionSoftware Engineering Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

PERBANDINGAN ALGORITMA WINNOWING DENGAN ALGORITMA RABIN KARP UNTUK MENDETEKSI PLAGIARISME PADA KEMIRIPAN TEKS JUDUL SKRIPSI

Open access
ALAMSYAH, NUR·2017·Technologia: Jurnal Ilmiah

Abstract

Plagiarisme biasanya sering terjadi di dunia Pendidikan, baik itu dalam pengerjaan skripsi atau karya tulis ilmiah, dimana mahasiswa dituntut untuk menyelesaikan skripsinya sebagai syarat kelulusan dan mendapatkan gelar sarjana. Deadline untuk segera menyelesaikan karya tulis ilmiah inilah memicu mereka untuk mencari jalan pintas untuk melakukan copy-paste karya ilmiah atau skripsi orang lain sehingga terjadinya plagiarisme. Untuk membantu mengurangi tingkat plagiarisme telah banyak dibuat sistem pendeteksi plagiarisme untuk memeriksa tingkat kemiripan teks dokumen. Pada umumnya, sistem pendeteksi plagiarisme dikembangkan untuk data teks seperti essay, artikel, jurnal, penelitian dan dokumen teks yang lebih terstruktur seperti source code bahasa pemrograman. Untuk mendeteksi plagiarisme atau kemiripan teks dokumen dengan metode fingerprinting dapat dilakukan dengan perbandingan algoritma yang berkaitan pada bidang text mining misal perbandingan pendekatan Algoritma Rabin Karp, Algoritma Manber dan Algoitma Winnowing. Pendekatan Algoritma Winnowing lebih baik daripada pendekatan algoritma Rabin Karp karena menghasilkan tingkat presentase yang lebih kecil dan waktu proses yang lebih cepat, Berdasarkan hasil Pengujian terhadap perbandingan pendekatan algoritma winnowing dengan algoritma rabin karp dapat dilihat kemungkinan kemiripan teks judul skripsi yang terkecil adalah dengan penggunakan pendekatan algoritma winnowing yaitu pada ujicoba ke 8 dengan nilai n-gram = 9 dan window = 3 , proses waktu 0.0257 dengan tingkat kemiripan terkecil yaitu 32.6 %. Kata Kunci : Algoritma Winnowing, Rabin Karp, fingerprint, n-gram, Hashing, plagiarisme

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.31602/tji.v8i3.1116

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
ALAMSYAH, N.
Affiliations
Universitas Islam Kalimantan Muhammad Arsyad Al Banjary (ID)
Corresponding author
ALAMSYAH, NUR
Venue
Technologia: Jurnal Ilmiah
Published
2017-07-02
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
124
ISSN
  • 2086-6917 (ISSN-L)
  • 2656-8047
OpenAlex
W2884010491
Cited by
20
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1
FWCI
4.39
Type
journal article
Language
id
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Technologia Jurnal Ilmiah (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Theoretical Computer Science › Algorithms and Data Compression
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
Keywords
plagiarism detection, winnowing algorithm, Rabin-Karp algorithm, fingerprinting, n-grams, text similarity, hashing, algorithm comparison, undergraduate theses

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review