MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Socio - Religious Significance of Obi (Kola Nut) among the Igala People of Kogi State

2011· article· en· W1560818349 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Imhoghıemhe John Iyere

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnologyArtHumanitiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses on the socio- religious significance of obi ( kola nut) among the Igala people of Kogi State, Nigeria. Obi is a significant item that is often eaten in socio-religious gatherings. Without it no traditional marriage can be celebrated in Igala-land. Its breaking and eating symbolize unity, peace, love and acceptance under the protective eyes of Ọjọchamachala (God) and Ibegwu (Ancestors). Suggestions are therefore made to make its socio-religious and socio-cultural importance global. Key words: Socio – Religious; Kola nut; Igala Resume: Ce document se concentre sur la signification socio-religieuse de l'obi (la noix de kola) parmi les gens Igala dans l'etat de Kogi, au Nigeria. L'obi est un element important qui est souvent consomme lors des rassemblements socio-religieux. Aucun mariage traditionnel ne peut etre celebre dans la region d'Igala sans ce fruit. Le briser et le manger symbolisent l'unite, la paix, l'amour et l'acceptation sous les yeux protecteurs des Ọjọchamachala (Dieu) et Ibegwu (ancetres). Des suggestions sont donc faites pour lui rendre son importance socio-religieuse et socio-culturelle globale. Mots-cles: Socio – Religieux; la noix de kola; Igala

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-cultural communicationSame topicRangeland Management and Livestock EcologyFrench-language works237,207