Status of Living Standards in Nigeria between 2010 and 2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nigeria experienced a drop in the poverty rate to an average of 56.1% between 1999 and 2007.This could be attributed to the measures taken by the civilian government against administrative corruption, increased domestic and foreign investments and some implemented agricultural policies.These efforts were thwarted by subsequent administrations with devastating effects on the Nigerian population.Despite an average annual economic growth rate of 6% between 2004 and 2010, the incidence of poverty has remained high, increasing from 54.7% in 2004 to 60.9% in 2010.The high rate of poverty in Nigeria has reached alarming proportions.It is in recognition of this that this study analyzes the variations in poverty across the six geopolitical zones of Nigeria, including the rural and urban areas.To achieve this objective, the study analyzes poverty from a non-income approach using the living standards indicators: floor of the dwelling, cooking fuel, lighting, source of drinking water, type of sanitation facility and type of refuse disposal facility.The dataset used in this study is the General Household Survey (GHS-Panel) wave 1 (2010-2011) and wave 2 (2012-2013).The living standards indicators reveal, albeit geographically unevenly distributed, that the majority of Nigerians have low living standards in a number of key areas, across the six geopolitical zones and in both urban and rural areas.The results of the study thus show increases in poverty in most of Nigeria's geopolitical zones and in both the rural and urban areas, despite the years of economic growth preceding the General Household Survey, indicating that growth has not been pro-poor in 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".