MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787488625 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v11n1p20

Analysing Poverty in Nigeria through Theoretical Lenses

2018· article· en· W2787488625 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Victoria Voelwoen Danaan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyDevelopment economicsCulture of povertyConceptualizationBasic needsSocial exclusionPhenomenonUnemploymentSociologyEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various indicators suggest that poverty is a major obstacle to Nigeria’s socio-economic development. Poverty has persisted and several interventions have failed to yield significant improvement in Nigeria’s Human Development Index even in periods of economic growth. Plagued with the challenges of unemployment crises, climate change, conflict, fragility and violence, Nigeria (the most populous country in Africa) stands at a grave risk if poverty is not tackled. This paper explores seven theories of poverty in literature: The Culture of Poverty, Individual Deficiency Theory, Progressive Social Theory, Geographical Disparities Theory, Cyclical Interdependence Theory, Poverty Individualisation and the Theory of Social Exclusion /Cumulative Disadvantage. It reviews these theories by employing a qualitative and descriptive research approach in order to broaden the understanding of the complexities of the phenomenon of poverty from a global worldview and examine how these relate to the nature of poverty in Nigeria. It corroborates the fact that poverty in Nigeria is complex and multidimensional in its conceptualization and measurement, encompassing economic, social, cultural and psychological indicators. The paper therefore attempts to explore the phenomenon of poverty within the Nigerian context by examining these theoretical paradigms. It suggests an understanding of underlying causal factors of poverty in designing pro-poor programmes and a hydra-headed approach to tackle its menace effectively and progressively. It argues that poverty reduction is realizable by empowering people to develop resilience to cope and overcome it within the scope of their resources and capabilities.

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)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations69
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207