MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102850738 · doi:10.5539/enrr.v2n2p93

The Place of TVET as a Tool for Manpower Development for Achieving Vision 20; 2020 in the Nigerian Construction Industry

2012· article· en· W2102850738 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nofiu Abiodun Musa, Jacob A. B. Awolesi, Benjamin Onuorah Okafor

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Natural Resources Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVocational educationGovernment (linguistics)Test (biology)Service (business)Set (abstract data type)BusinessSample (material)Millennium Development GoalsEconomic growthOperations managementPolitical sciencePsychologyDeveloping countryEngineeringMarketingComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In demonstration of its commitment towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the Federal Government of Nigeria has set year 2020 as the target year of becoming one of the 20-leadingeconomy globally: termed Vision 20:2020. However, Technical and Vocational Education Training (TVET) is one of the training strategies adopted for the required manpower development to drive the economy towards achieving this laudable vision. This Study therefore, examined TVET as a means of manpower development required for attaining Vision 20: 2020 in Nigeria. The major objective is to determine the effectiveness of the programme (TVET) as a verifiable tool for building the necessary manpower to drive the economy towards achieving the set vision. Towards this end, a questionnaire survey was conducted on a sample of one hundred (100) establishments that engages HND graduates in Quantity Surveying in one year youth service Scheme covering the six geo-political zones in Nigeria. The data obtained were subjected to Relative Skill Acquisition Index (R.S.A.I). The RSAI obtained was compared with the expected RSAI of 4 (Good Performance) using Chi-square (c2) test at 95% confidence level. SPSS 15.0 version was adopted for the analysis. The result revealed that the obtained RSAI is significantly lower than the expected (?<0.05). The paper concluded that the skilled acquired by the graduates is far below the required skill that will drive the economy towards achieving the vision.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Natural Resources ResearchSame topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207