An Appraisal of the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) in Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study appraises the Freedom of Information Act in Nigeria. The study made use of qualitative research method. The researcher consulted secondary sources such as books, journals, and magazines for the collection of data. The study reveals that in Nigeria, Freedom of Information Act contains more exemption sections and clauses than sections that grant access to information. This means that some mischievous public officers can use these sections for unjust and mischievous purposes. Another fundamental issue that affects The Freedom of Information Act is some other media laws that are still fully operational in Nigeria. For example, we have the Official Secrets Act, Evidence Act, the Public Complaints Commission Act, the Statistics Act, and the Criminal Code; all aimed at suppressing the free flow of information. The study recommends that the workability of the law in Nigeria remains a concern. Allaying this concern will be highly predicated on how well strict compliance is made to the relevant provisions of the law. Some of the anti-press laws that adorn or law book should either be expunged or repelled. It is in that, that the FoIA can be beneficial to the Nigerian nation and its citizens alike.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".