MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107731645 · doi:10.5539/ass.v8n4p57

Poverty Alleviation through Corporate Social Responsibility in Niger Delta, Nigeria

2012· article· en· W2107731645 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bede Obinna Amadi, Haslinda Abdullah

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicNatural Resources and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyCorporate social responsibilityGovernment (linguistics)Economic growthNiger deltaDeveloping countryPetroleum industryPopulationBusinessDevelopment economicsPoverty reductionEconomicsPolitical scienceDeltaSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Failed government’s policies aimed at developing the Niger Delta region left it one of the poorest regions of Nigeria; and necessitated agitations by the communities for oil multinationals to step in to fill this development gap. Through the company’s corporate social responsibility, Shell Petroleum Developing Company – the Nigerian subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell has demonstrated commitments to the reduction of poverty in the region. The paper examines some of the company’s poverty alleviation projects in the region. Using a qualitative approach, drawing on relevant secondary data and content analysis the paper argues that Shell has contributed immensely to the development of local communities in its areas of operation and also contributed to the economic growth of Nigeria. However, given the vast majority of the region’s population living in poverty, the paper advises that government should complement the efforts of Shell both in the region and across the country using massive wealth generated for the government by the oil company.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations33
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicNatural Resources and Economic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207