Fiscal Allocation and Administrative Effectiveness of University Managers in Southern Nigeria ALLOCATION BUDGÉTAIRE ET EFFICACITÉ ADMINISTRATIVE DES GESTIONNAIRES DES UNIVERSITÉS DU NIGERIA DU SUD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated Fiscal Allocation and Administrative effectiveness of managers of Federal universities in the South-East and South-South Zones of Nigeria. The causal comparative design was adopted while two hypotheses which covered the sub-variables of the research were formulated to guide the study. Two ten point semantic differential instruments were developed and validated for the study: Fiscal Allocation and Administrative Effectiveness Questionnaire (FAAEQ) and University managers Administrative Effectiveness Questionnaire (UMAEQ) were used to obtain data from 600 purposively sampled subjects and 2,400 randomly selected lecturers from a population of 640 managers and 8,654 lecturers respectively in the eight universities within the area of study. The data were analyzed using population t-test. The study revealed a significantly high level of fiscal allocation to universities in Nigeria and that universities manager’s administrative effectiveness was equally significantly high. It was concluded that fiscal allocation in terms of the levels of subvention, internal revenue, grant/aid has a significantly high influence on the administrative effectiveness of university managers in terms of budgeting, decision-making and management of finance, personnel, curriculum and plant/facilities. Keywords: Fiscal Allocation; University Managers; Administrative EffectivenessResume: Cette etude a examine l'allocation budgetaire et l'efficacite administrative des gestionnaires des universites federales dans les zones sud-est et sud-ouest du Nigeria. La methode comparative de causalite a ete adoptee alors que deux hypotheses qui couvraient les sous-variables de la recherche ont ete formulees afin de guider l'etude. Deux instruments semantiques differents de dix points ont ete developpees et validees pour l'etude. Le questionnaire de l'allocation budgetaire et de l'efficacite administrative(QABEA) et le questionnaire de l'efficacite administrative des gestionnaires universitaires (QEAGU) ont ete utilises pour obtenir des donnees de 600 sujets deliberement choisis et 2.400 enseignants choisis au hasard parmi un total de 640 gestionnaires et de 8.654 professeurs respectivement, dans les huit universites dans le domaine d'etude. Les donnees ont ete analysees a l'aide du t-test de population. L'etude a revele un niveau significativement eleve de l'allocation budgetaire pour les universites du Nigeria et le niveau de l'efficacite administrative des gestionnaires des universites a ete egalement significativement elevee. Il a conclu que l'allocation budgetaire en terme du niveau de subvention, des recettes internes, de la subvention ou de l'aide avait une influence significative sur l'efficacite administrative des gestionnaires des universites en matiere de la budgetisation, de la decision et la gestion des finances, du personnel, des programmes et des installations.Mots-cles: allocation budgetaire; gestionnaires des universites; efficacite administrative
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".