MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283740338 · doi:10.18280/ijdne.170314

Effect of Bokashi Fertilizer on Increasing Soil Nutrients and Growth of Medicinal Plants

2022· article· en· W4283740338 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ramlan Ramlan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Growth and Agriculture Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitas Tadulako
KeywordsCow dungBulbFertilizerNutrientOrganic fertilizerSoil nutrientsAgronomyMathematicsSoil testSoil pHHorticultureBiologySoil waterEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of bokashi (Cow) fertilizer on increasing soil nutrients and the growth of medicinal plants (Biopharmaca). The research method was a completely randomized design (CRD) with 3 treatments which were repeated 3 times. The type of bokashi fertilizer is cow dung, while the medicinal plants used are ginger and turmeric. Data analysis was performed using ANOVA (Analysis of variance) and 5% F test to determine the effect of treatment. The research findings showed that the application of organic matter bokashi cow dung succeeded in increasing soil nutrients consisting of H2O, C-Organic, P2O5, K2O, and CEC along with the increase in the concentration of bokashi. Giving bokashi cow dung had a significant effect on plant height, the number of leaves, and bulb weight of Biopharmaca plants at 30 DAP and 60 DAP measurements. It was concluded based on the results of the study that goat and cow dung bokashi can be used to increase soil nutrients such as KCl, C-Organic, N-Total, P2O5, K2O, and CEC. Besides, bokashi fertilizer can also be used for the growth of biopharmaceutical plants where plant height, number of leaves, and bulb weight of medicinal plants are indicators used.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and EcodynamicsSame topicPlant Growth and Agriculture TechniquesFrench-language works237,207