Utilization Of Local Government Funds Through Participatory Development In Some Selected Local Government Areas (Lgas) Of Kogi State
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study examines the need for the efficient allocation of local government funds through participatory development in order to ensure the judicious use of their resources. It also examines the rural people’s needs as perceived by them and also their needs as perceived by the local governments. This study is necessitated by the fact that the local government resources are not adequate to provide the needed services and the need therefore to ensure that the resources at their disposal are used efficiently. The primary data for the study were obtained directly from the selected local government areas and the communities while existing literature and their finances provided the source of secondary data. Rank correlation was used to test the degree of correlation between the local governments’ perception of the communities’ problems and the communities’ perception of their problems. It was revealed that the people in the rural communities have the ability to articulate their needs. It was also revealed that in almost all the communities, the people’s perceptions of their problems is quite different from the way their problems were perceived by the local governments. This led therefore to the non efficient use of local government resources as they were not used to meet the people’s needs as expected. It is therefore suggested that the local governments should consult with the communities and carry them along when planning for them. It is also recommended that, the local government officials should consider the communities first in their developmental programmes and not see their own interests as matters of primary concern.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".