New Analysis

likely ai

This academic research paper shows strong indicators of AI-assisted writing, particularly in its formal sections, theoretical framework, and methodology chapters. While the document contains clear markers of student authorship (informal notes like 'add rows na lang', placeholder text, and some grammatical inconsistencies), the body prose exhibits consistent AI-generation patterns.

Authentic AI Created/Modified
62%
0 25 50 75 100
Input Details
Type
text
Excerpt
"CODE Wait for Division Memo CLIMB-Farm: Development and Evaluation of an Integrated Smart Farming System for Flood-Prone Agricultural Conditions Damian, Anghel P. De Luna, Mackein Clarabal, Sha..."
Analyzed
8/18/2026, 2:27:51 AM
Detection Signals
Templated repetition across sections

The Acknowledgement contains two near-identical paragraphs: 'Her generosity and willingness to extend support greatly contributed to the researchers' ability to accomplish the necessary requirements' and 'His generosity and willingness to extend support greatly contributed to the researchers' ability to accomplish the necessary requirements.' The Data Analysis section repeats 'The recorded results indicate that the function generally performed as intended across the repeated trials. The presence of unsuccessful trials shows that minor performance variation occurred during testing, but the overall proportion of successful results remained high. These findings support the corresponding summary result...' verbatim for every single sensor/component.

strong
Theoretical framework structural uniformity

Every theory section follows an identical pattern: introduce the theorist and year, explain the principle, then connect it to RootHive. For example: 'Dalton's Law of Partial Pressures by John Dalton (1801)...The principle supports the researcher's current study by explaining...' then 'Fick's Law of Diffusion, introduced by Adolf Fick (1855)...By integrating automated sensing with the natural process of diffusion, RootHive...' This rigid structural uniformity across ten separate theory entries strongly suggests AI templating.

strong
Smooth exhaustive transitions and coverage

Phrases like 'Furthermore, besides flood mitigation,' 'Correspondingly, the availability of elevated root-zone oxygen,' 'Collectively, the integration of RootHive hardware,' and 'Ultimately, this study is expected to support advancement' appear throughout, creating seamless transitions that cover every angle without gaps — a hallmark of AI writing.

strong
Hedging and balanced qualifiers

'These quantitative results indicate that the developed system generally demonstrated consistent and reliable performance...although the comparatively lower performance of soil moisture detection and calcium peroxide dispensing identifies areas requiring further refinement.' The qualifier structure of claim + caveat + future improvement suggestion is consistent AI hedging behavior.

moderate
Genuine human error markers

The text contains 'drop yield' where 'crop yield' is meant, 'Zhou et al., 2026' and 'Thamaraiselvan et al., 2026' (future dates, likely typos), 'because it replaces the air spaces within the soil, prohibiting sufficient oxygen' (awkward phrasing), and 'beyond water caused by flooding creates a not good environment' — these are authentic student errors unlikely to survive AI polishing.

moderate
Informal placeholder elements

The document contains 'add rows na lang' (Filipino for 'just add rows'), 'Figure 1 Title Here' repeated multiple times, 'CODE Wait for Division Memo' at the top, and blank table entries. These are clearly student scaffolding notes inconsistent with AI-only generation.

moderate
Tense inconsistency in methodology

The Methodology chapter inconsistently shifts between past tense ('The researchers will gather data through systematic testing') and present/future tense ('will be tested,' 'will be evaluated'), suggesting human editing of AI-drafted text rather than consistent human or AI authorship.

moderate
ChatGPT lexicon and phrasing

'data-driven decision-making' appears at least 15 times throughout; 'flood-prone conditions' repeated throughout; 'sustainable agricultural practices,' 'climate resilience,' 'timely intervention,' 'holistic' approach implied throughout. The Background of the Study uses 'this underscores the limited application surrounding integration of these technologies' — characteristic AI formality.

moderate
Detailed Analysis
The document is a mixed artifact: parts are clearly student-generated (administrative scaffolding, placeholder text like 'Figure 1 Title Here', and the note 'add rows na lang'), while the substantive written prose sections show strong AI-generation signals throughout. The Acknowledgement section is formulaic AI text. Phrases like 'unwavering guidance, patience, and support throughout the entire research process,' 'valuable insights, constructive suggestions, and continuous encouragement,' and 'heartfelt appreciation' repeat in near-identical templates across multiple paragraphs. Two separate acknowledgement paragraphs for different people use virtually word-for-word identical language: 'His/Her generosity and willingness to extend support greatly contributed to the researchers' ability to accomplish the necessary requirements and continue their work.' This copy-paste structure is a hallmark of AI drafting. The Abstract is dense and technically precise in a way that reads as AI-polished: 'an integrated smart farming system combining the RootHive hardware and Smart Digital Farm Management Application to provide environmental sensing, calcium peroxide and liquid fertilizer dispensing, mobility, real-time monitoring, and digital farm management under flood-prone conditions.' The exhaustive enumeration of variables and metrics in a single sentence is characteristic of AI output. The Theoretical Framework sections follow a rigid AI template for each principle: (1) state who introduced it and when, (2) explain the principle, (3) explain its relevance to the study. Every single section — Dalton's Law, Fick's Law, Ohm's Law, Henry's Law, etc. — follows this identical structure without variation, strongly suggesting AI generation with prompts like 'explain [law] and its relevance to RootHive.' The Data Presentation and Analysis section is almost certainly AI-generated. The interpretive paragraphs are structurally identical across all tables: 'The detailed trial table for [X] shows [N] successful results out of 100 trials, while [N] trials were unsuccessful. This corresponds to a success rate of [N]%. The recorded results indicate that the function generally performed as intended across the repeated trials. The presence of unsuccessful trials shows that minor performance variation occurred during testing...' This template repeats with only variable substitution, which is AI behavior, not human writing. However, there are genuine human signals: grammatical inconsistencies like 'drop yield' (should be 'crop yield'), awkward phrasing like 'alleviate waterlogging stress caused by gradual discharge of oxygen atoms,' and 'a compound that produces oxygen upon contact with water. This lessens waterlogging stress.' There are also tense inconsistencies throughout methodology (switching between future and past tense), references to years like '2026' which may be errors, and the informal placeholder notes ('add rows na lang'). These suggest students were involved in writing portions of the document, likely using AI for key explanatory sections and either writing or lightly editing others.