MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134793400 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v1n3p117

Soil Nitrogen Phosphorus and Tea Leaf Growth in Organic and Conventional Farming of Selected Fields at Sabah Tea Plantation Slope

2009· article· en· W2134793400 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khim Phin Chong, Tek Yung Ho, Mohamadu Boyie Jalloh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Land Suitability Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhosphorusOrganic farmingEnvironmental scienceAgricultureNitrogenAgronomyTea gardenField experimentSoil waterHorticultureChemistryBiologySoil scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A comparative study of organic and conventional farming system at three different slope sections was conducted in Sabah Tea Plantation to determine the effect of management practices and slope section on soil nitrogen, phosphorus and pH as well as tea leaves size. Soils from two selected fields; B29 (conventional field) and NO3 (organic field) in Sabah Tea Plantation were analyzed using selected soil analysis method with UV spectrophotometer. Organic farming system resulted in significantly higher level of soil pH (4.14), leaf length (15.14 cm) and leaf width (7.33 cm) than conventional farming system soil pH (3.38), leaf length (13.19 cm) and leaf width (5.58 cm). However, conventional farming system produced higher levels of ammonium content (166.16 µg ml-1) than organic farming system (22.56 µg ml1). No significant difference in soil Phosphorus and nitrate content were observed between two farming systems. Results also showed no significant effects of slope sections on all parameters studied. This study has provided basic knowledge on soil Nnitrogen, phosphorus as well as tea growth of organic and conventional farming in Sabah Tea Plantation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicSoil and Land Suitability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207