MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793828523 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v9n2p76

Transparency and Accountability in Public Financial Management: A Stewardship Account at Kano State Ministry of Finance, Nigeria

2018· article· en· W2793828523 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kabiru Isa Dandago

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicTaxation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityTransparency (behavior)RevenueAccountingPublic sectorBusinessStewardship (theology)FinanceEconomicsPublic relationsPublic administrationPolitical scienceEconomyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims at accounting for the transparency and accountability demonstrated through the unity and togetherness of the functionaries of the Ministry of Finance Kano State, Nigeria as they collectively discharge the five key responsibilities of the Ministry during a period of 28 months (June 2015 to October 2017) under the humble leadership of the author. The paper is skewed towards practical (as against theoretical) dispensation of effective public finance management at the sub-national level in Nigeria, covering revenue management, expenditure management, debt management, investment management and wealth creation and management. This exposure of transparency and accountability has attracted some encouraging comments from hundreds of concerned analysists and lovers of transparency and accountability from different parts of the world, out of which a select sampled comments have been captured in the paper. The paper also attempts some responses to the seven questions raised by one of the commentators (An International Public Financial Management Expert) in respect of the earlier internet posting made on the subject matter. The paper recommends that research students, scholars and practitioners should conduct further studies on the issues raised in the paper so as to find solutions to the weak nature of the practice of prudence, transparency and accountability in the public sector of developing economies, like Nigeria.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicTaxation and Compliance StudiesFrench-language works237,207