MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2283629817 · doi:10.5539/jel.v5n2p1

Internally Generated Revenue (IGR) and Effectiveness of University Administration in Nigeria

2016· article· en· W2283629817 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Felicia I. Ofoegbu, Hezekiah Ogbomida Alonge

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican Education and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeautificationRevenueDescriptive statisticsPopulationProduct (mathematics)BusinessTransformative learningMarketingManagementBusiness administrationSociologyAccountingEconomicsPedagogyEngineeringStatisticsMathematicsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the study was mainly to identify the major sources and utilization of internally generated financial revenue by Nigerian University administrators. The population of the study consisted of all the 102 university administrators from the seventeen Federal Universities in Southern Nigeria. Descriptive statistics and Pearson Product Moment Correlation were used to analyze the research questions and hypotheses formulated for the study. The analysis revealed that commercial ventures were among the main sources of IGR while the proceeds were used for services including staff welfare, maintenance of facilities and beautification of the university premises. A further analysis of data showed that there was a significant relationship between internally generated resources and the management and development of universities in Southern Nigeria. It is recommended that university administrators should be more transformative in their leadership style in order to strengthen their revenue base for effectiveness in University management.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicAfrican Education and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207