MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013867020 · doi:10.1521/siso.2013.77.3.315

The Nigerian "One Percent" and the Management of National Oil Wealth through Nigerian Content

2013· article· en· W2013867020 on OpenAlexaff
Jesse Salah Ovadia

Bibliographic record

VenueScience & Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicNatural Resources and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnrestEliteOil reservesResource curseDevelopment economicsEconomic growthSocial unrestResource (disambiguation)BusinessEconomicsNatural resourceEconomic policyPetroleumPolitical sciencePoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Five decades of oil production in Nigeria have failed to produce meaningful economic or social development. Instead, the country has become a laboratory for economists proposing policy solutions to the "resource curse." To increase the benefit accruing to the nation from its resource wealth, Nigeria has adopted "local content" policies, seeking to domicile in Nigeria oil-related economic activity previously located abroad. The stated aim of the Nigerian Content Act (2010) is to promote the utilization of Nigerian human and material resources and services. With passage of the NCA, Nigeria has reached a crucial juncture. "Nigerian content" policies have the potential to succeed where previous policies have failed to translate resource wealth into economic and social development. However, a close reading of the genesis of these policies in light of current unrest in Nigeria suggests that Nigerian content is also a project to direct increased benefit to the domestic elite from the country's petroleum wealth.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations30
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience & SocietySame topicNatural Resources and Economic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207