The Assessment of Soil Quality Index for Paddy Fields with Indicator Biology in Jatipurno Districts, Wonogirl
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased rice needs in an extensive use of paddy fields in the Jatipurno, Wonogiri. Managing rice fields can reduce soil quality. Proper management can improve soil quality, Jatipurno has management such as organic, semi-organic and inorganic paddy field management which have a real effect on soil quality. Assessment of soil quality is measured by physical, chemical and biological indicators, where each factor has a different effect. The chemical indicators are often used as the main indicators for determining soil quality, whereas every parameter has the opportunity to be the main indicator. So, biological indicators can play indicators. The main indicators are obtained from the correlation test (p-values ≤ 0,05 - < 0,01) and Principal Component Analysis with high value, eigenvalues > 1 have the potential to be used as Minimum Data Sets. The result is biological can be able to use as the Minimum Data Set such as microbial carbon biomass, respiration, and total bacterial colonies. The Soil Quality Index (SQI) of various paddy management practices shows very low to low soil quality values. The management of organic rice systems shows better Soil Quality Index with a score of 0,20 compared to other management. The practice of organic rice management shows that it can improve soil quality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".