MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392077539 · doi:10.51826/piper.v19i2.916

UJI PERTUMBUHAN DAN HASIL ENAM VARIETAS TANAMAN TERUNG (Solanum melongena, L.) PADA TANAH PODSOLIK MERAH KUNING

2023· article· id· W4392077539 on OpenAlexaff
Markus Sinaga, Mangardi Mangardi, Nikodemus Husein

Bibliographic record

VenuePIPER · 2023
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Growth and Agriculture Techniques
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMelongenaSolanumHorticultureBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Produksi terung di Kabupaten Sintang masih rendah hanya 0,66 ton/Ha, penyebabnya karena beberapa faktor diantaranya adalah tanah yang kurang subur karena didominasi oleh tanah Podsolik Merah Kuning. Upaya meningkatkan produksi tanaman dapat dilakukan dengan beberapa langkah salah satunya adalah pemilihan varietas yang sesuai dengan kondisi lingkungan tumbuh terutama tanah dan iklim. Tujuan penelitian ini untuk mengetahui pertumbuhan dan hasil enam varietas terung pada tanah Podsolik Merah Kuning. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode percobaan lapangan dan menggunakan Rancangan Kelompok Lengkap Teracak (RKLT) faktor tunggal dengan empat ulangan. Perlakuan penelitian terdiri dari Varietas Terung Mustang (V1), Milano (V2), Bungo (V3), Lezata (V4), Turangga (V5) dan Raos (V6). Data hasil pengamatan dianalisis dengan uji F, jika menunjukkan ada pengaruh nyata pada selang kepercayaan 0,05 kemudian dilanjutkan dengan uji Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT). Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa dari enam varietas tanaman terung dengan pertumbuhan dan hasil tertinggi adalah Lezata, rata-rata pertambahan tinggi tanaman 44,04 cm, persentase bunga menjadi buah (5,76%), jumlah buah (2,47 buah), dan berat buah tertinggi 20,71 g.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.203 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePIPERSame topicPlant Growth and Agriculture TechniquesFrench-language works237,207