MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111151991 · doi:10.1350/clwr.2007.36.2.106

Going Virtual: Using Some Common Law World Initiatives to Update the Nigerian Law on Corporate Democracy

2007· article· en· W2111151991 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ige Omotayo Bolodeoku

Bibliographic record

VenueCommon Law World Review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Governance and Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaw reformCorporate governanceThe InternetDemocracyShareholderContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Corporate lawBusinessLawEconomicsPublic administrationPolitical scienceFinancePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a reform of Nigerian company law to integrate the Internet into the corporate governance scheme. In so doing, the paper examines reforms in some common law countries, especially the United States (the state of Delaware), Canada and the United Kingdom, highlighting to policy- and law-makers key areas they may focus on in the Nigerian reform. It emphasizes the need for a reform that will preserve extant rights, liberalize participation and induce transmission of information at a cost that the shareholders can afford. While noting the challenges such a reform may face in the Nigerian context, the paper proposes the type of Internet-related reform that may work well for Nigeria at present. It makes a case for the reform's relevance, given the government's commitment to liberalize entry into the telecommunications industry and to promote competition. The paper also notes that the exponential increase in the Internet penetration rate in Nigeria signals the desirability of a reform in the direction the paper proposes.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.012
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommon Law World ReviewSame topicCorporate Governance and LawFrench-language works237,207