The need for popular participation in Abuja: a Nigerian story of informal settlements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The notion of public participation in planning resettlements in the Federal Capital Territory of Abuja, Nigeria was not taken into consideration during the forced evictions that took place between 2003 and 2007. The aim of this paper is to explore the role of advocacy in a rights‐based approach for consultation, participation and capacity‐building for the victims of forced evictions in Abuja. Design/methodology/approach This is a case study approach that explores individual and group capacities in Abuja's informal settlements. Findings The demolition of informal settlements was carried out without due process, participatory approaches and group consultation in the plans for resettlement. Additionally, the office of the Federal Capital Development Authority put forth the argument that the proper implementation of the master plan justified and necessitated the systematic violation of the rights of hundreds of thousands of peoples; so that Abuja would not become a victim of urban sprawl which is evident in many other developing country city centres like Lagos, Cairo, or the favelas of Rio de Janeiro. Research limitations/implications The researcher has explored a widening gap between the agenda of a master plan for a developing country's capital city and the development of an informal economy within makeshift settlements. Originality/value This case study sheds more light on the human rights violations which have characterized the method of dealing with informal settlements in the new capital city of Abuja.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".