MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2746557764

Canadian-Nigerian Human Rights Engagements (1999-2011): An Introduction

2016· article· en· W2746557764 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Obiora Chinedu Okafor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More contemporary Canadian-Nigerian human rights engagements have occurred against the backdrop of a relatively long history of engagement in this area between the two countries, and alongside an even longer history of Canadian-Nigerian relations more generally. These are histories within which one must situate the human rights engagements between these countries during the specific period under study here. As is well known, Canada established diplomatic relations with Nigeria shortly after Nigeria’s independence from British colonial rule in 1960. Nigeria reciprocated in 1973. It is noteworthy that Canada has for several decades now funded or otherwise supported many human rights efforts and struggles in Nigeria (as elsewhere), including in relation to judicial reform, institution building, democratization, and poverty alleviation. While Nigeria has – over time – more or less remained engaged in this relationship, the evidence suggests that Nigeria has not tended to act in a similar manner toward Canada. While the preliminary evidence suggests that the interventions from Canada have played some kind of role in Nigeria, the exact nature, attainments, problems, and prospects of such Canadian-Nigerian human rights cooperation has not been as rigorously studied and widely understood in the scholarly literature as might be expected. The relevant literature (especially its human rights sub-set) is thus relatively inadequate at the moment. Neither Howard-Hassman’s very important 2004 piece on the Canadian intervention regarding the flogging of Bariya Magazu by the authorities in one far Northern Nigerian state (province), nor Sonia Cardenas’ excellent exploration of the various ways in which the Canadian Human Rights Commission has sought to assist national human rights bodies around the world, come close to filling this huge gap in the literature. Similar points can be made concerning work done by the now defunct CIDA, and the writings of scholars such as Feyisetan; the Reliefweb; and Aiyede. As such, it is clear that Canadian/Nigerian policymakers, development practitioners, and scholars will benefit significantly from any additional insight into the afore-referenced questions. So will many among the lettered and relevant segments of the Canadian/Nigerian public. Needless to say, important (albeit preliminary) analogies could also be made from the discussion here in relation to the similarly under-studied aspects of Canada’s human rights role in other African and even developing countries generally.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0160.038
Science and technology studies0.0190.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207