MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Climate Change Effects and Academic Staff Role Performance in Universities in Cross River State, Nigeria

2012· article· en· W1824716416 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Basil Azubuike Akuegwu, Felix D. Nwi-ue, Christian Gbarawae Nwikina

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher education of social science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeProduct (mathematics)Sample (material)PopulationState (computer science)PsychologyPolitical scienceSociologyComputer scienceMathematicsDemographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change is a scourge that is attracting wide-spreadapprehension in the world today. Its harsh effect is felton how people, plants and animals live. This surveydesigned study is geared towards assessing the climatechange effects on academic staff role performance inuniversities in Cross River State, Nigeria. Two hypotheseswere isolated to direct this investigation. 300 academicstaff from the two universities (150 each) constitutedthe sample drawn from academic staff population of1,137. Data for analysis were generated using ClimateChange Effects Questionnaire (CCEQ) and AcademicStaff Role Performance Survey (ASRPS). Populationt-test and Pearson Product Moment Correlation (r)statistical techniques were used for data analysis. Resultsdisclosed that climate change effects on academic staffrole performance in universities in Cross River Stateare significantly high. There is significant relationshipbetween climate change effects and academic staff roleperformance. It was concluded that virtually all theaspects of academic staff role performance are affected byclimate change effects. On the strength of these findings,recommendations were made. Key words: Academic staff; Climate change effects;Role performance; Universities

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher education of social scienceSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207