MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104175334 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v8n1p235

Determinants of Poverty Level in Nigeria

2015· article· en· W2104175334 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Olabode Philip Olofin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyPer capitaEconomicsPer capita incomeIndex (typography)Consumption (sociology)PopulationOrdinary least squaresDevelopment economicsDemographic economicsSocioeconomicsEconometricsEconomic growthDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study uses annual data between 1990 and 2010, and employs Dynamic Ordinary Least Square (DOLS) method to examine what determines poverty level in Nigeria. Unlike many studies, we measure poverty with poverty index generated from combination of per worker agricultural value added, real per capita income and consumption per capita using principal component analysis and common measurement of poverty (i.e. per capita real income). We first remove the trend component of our dependent variables (poverty index), using Butterworth filter and then regressed them on the important variables of interest. The findings show negative relationship between political right in levels and poverty, but positive relationship was found when political right was differenced. This result was not statistically significant. Political terror was found to reduce poverty with statistically significant result in levels when per capita real income was used for poverty, and became positively related with poverty when differenced. The result was statistically significant. We found that civil liberty was positively related to poverty, but the result was not statistically significant. Democracy was noted for reducing poverty with statistically significant result, while the increase in population and poverty were positively related with statistically significant result.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.328
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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207