MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2526229317 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v9n5p152

Managing Risks in Public Private Partnerships (PPP) in Housing in Nigeria: Methodological Perspective

2016· article· en· W2526229317 on OpenAlex
Yakubu Nehemiah Sanda, Natalia A. Anigbogu, Jurbe Joseph Molwus

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPublic-Private Partnership Projects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)BusinessRisk managementManagement scienceSociologyEconomicsComputer scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is generally accepted that effective risk management is key to successful project management. However, relevant questions pertinent to risk management can only be answered satisfactorily when the appropriate research methodology is adopted. This paper presents the research methodology adopted for a doctoral research aimed at managing risks in Public Private Partnerships in housing in Nigeria. The paper adopted the research ‘onion’ as a guide in the designing the research. The study outlines the research philosophy, approach, strategy, choice, time horizon and techniques and procedures for conducting the research and at the same time tries to justify those choices based on the nature of the research and the research questions as recommended in research methodology literatures. The paper contributes by highlighting justifications for the adoption of research methods to address the research objectives.

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.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.157 · 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