Bibliographic record
Abstract
In comparison with established democracies Nigeria is a highly populated and ethnic fragmented state. Therefore after colonial rule and independence a federal constitutional structure was supposed to bring the processes for conflict resolution between the ethnic groups. In 1960 Nigeria started as a highly decentralised state and went through important changes until 1999 towards greater centralisation which found its culmination in regular military governments and open conflicts. Until 1999 each constitution promulgated by the military was considered as a step towards the transition to democracy. After the constitution making process, political actors aspired to constitutional reforms in a democratic way. Those attempts at mega constitutional change were not successful, which lead to military coups once again. This paper traces back mega-constitutional change in Nigeria between 1999 until 2007. After a brief introduction the paper proceeds with the foundations of federalism and constitution making in Nigeria. The following three paragraphs deal with the politics of constitutional change in Nigeria from 1999 until 2007. The final part of the paper compares the failure of Nigerian constitutional reforms with the case of Canada. As in the Canadian case, sub constitutional change in Nigeria is presented as a possible answer to demands of reform, instead of mega-constitutional reform.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".