Bibliographic record
Abstract
The central aim of this paper is to examine the constitutionality of Nigeria’s sovereign wealth fund (SWF) which was established in August 2012, pursuant to the Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority (Establishment etc) Act 2011 (the NSIA Act). The paper reviews and discusses how questions on the constitutionality of a sovereign wealth fund have been dealt with in other jurisdictions with similar legal and governmental structures. It reviews practices in the United States and Canada, where the establishment of SWFs conform to their federal constitutional designs; and in Australia and Russia, where the law and practice of SWF are similar to the extant regime in Nigeria. This paper argues that questions on the constitutional basis of the SWF alone should not affect the establishment of a national SWF in Nigeria and therefore recommends a constitutional amendment to clear the grey areas. It discusses the importance of the law and development approach in resolving the identifiable setbacks in the Nigerian NSIA Act bearing in mind the potentials of the SWF in the socio-economic development of the Nigeria. Keywords: Sovereign wealth fund, constitution, stabilization
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".