Assessment of Newspaper Advocacy for Rural Development and Environmental Education in Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the extent to which the print media, and particularly the newspapers, faced the challenge of informing, educating and championing the rights of the people in rural development and environmental education in 2006. It analyzed five leading national newspapers for a period of twelve months to ascertain their level of coverage and reportage of environmental and rural development information and specialty events. Rural development news coverage was highest (31.48%) in the fourth quarter, and least in the third quarter (17.79%) of the year. Sixty nine percent of rural development information/news appeared as features, while others were presented as editorials (13.04%), advertorials (9.27%) and pictorials (8.38%). The Sun newspapers (23.65%) could easily pass as the best print medium in reporting environmental and rural development news, followed by The Punch (22.5%) and The Champion (21.3%) newspapers. The Sun newspapers also exhibited consistent leadership in promoting activities in the health and population / family planning sub-sectors, while The Champion disseminated more information on rural infrastructures and environmental matters. Viewed from the perspective of editor’s enhanced academic background, the rising educational profile of members of the public and the synergy between environment, health and rural development, newspapers need to improve on their advocacy role in order to enhance their credibility as promoters of issues of public interest. Key words: Print media, Content analysis, Advocacy journalism, Rural development, Environmental management
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".