MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004621154 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v4n6p169

Infrastructure Provision and Private Lands Acquisition Grievances: Social Benefits and Private Costs

2011· article· en· W2004621154 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Funlola Famuyiwa, M. M. Omirin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProperty Rights and Legal Doctrine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecreeGovernment (linguistics)BusinessEminent domainPopulationSustainabilityEnvironmental planningWelfareLand useEconomic growthPublic administrationEconomicsPolitical scienceGeographyLawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban infrastructure delivery will benefit a nation directly by improving public welfare. In urban areas, it is particularly necessary for sustainability. A crucial prerequisite for this is the provision of land. However, suitable lands for specific projects may not be available, and where such lands exist they may be in private holding. In Nigeria the Land Use Decree of 1978 provides that such properties can be acquired compulsorily by governments with powers of eminent domain for overriding public interest. This decree is however silent on the issues of injurious affection and disturbance. Currently in Lagos, the initiatives of the government to improve public welfare have been geared greatly towards solving the problems associated with urban and infrastructure decay. Series of public developments like road expansions have been embarked upon, thereby disturbing several land owners. This paper aims at demonstrating the adequacy of compulsory compensation policy on injuriously affected land owners within Victoria Island, Lagos. The study also makes corresponding clarifications with acquiring authorities, on a study population within a prestigious socio-economic status. Data collection was based on a survey which adopted the use of questionnaires, and structured interviews. Results revealed the opinions of various stakeholders in the process and deficiencies in the process amongst others. This study will serve as a guide for urban land management planning and development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicProperty Rights and Legal DoctrineFrench-language works237,207