A Legislative Proposal for Public Participation in Oil and Gas Decision-Making in Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nigeria is on the verge of comprehensively reviewing its oil and gas laws. The review is aimed at, among other things, addressing the conflicts associated with the management of the resources and, especially, the affect on the people of the oil producing region of the country who have been vigorously protesting about their alienation from the resources. Drawing on the international law of public participation in natural resource management, this article seeks to develop a viable legislative framework for public participation in oil and gas decision-making that Nigeria can adopt. A viable legislative framework must take into account the various factors that shape the effectiveness of participation and the elements that promote the objectives of participation. It is premised on the ground that looking to international prescriptions might help to elucidate gaps in domestic laws, as well as alternatives to overcome them.
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 | 0.062 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".