Judiciary and the Enthronements of Democratic Institution in Nigeria (1999-2017)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An issue related to enthronement of democratic institution in Nigeria, has attracted judicial concern. Democratic institution has allegedly characterised by lots of irregularities; this ranges from rigging to non- compliance to the rules as contained in the Electoral Act. This has established a negative practice on democratic stability. This study specifically set out to evaluate the Judiciary and the enthronement of democratic institution in Nigeria between 1999 and 2017, with emphasis on the performance of Election Petitions Tribunals in democratic institution. The crux of this study reviewed the controversy that surrounding 1999-2017 democratic institution in Nigeria. The study adopted principle of separation of powers as instrument to managing abuse of power, to increasing public confidence and enthronement of democratic institution in Nigeria. The study adopted descriptive explanation that anchored on secondary sources of data. The paper find that injustice in the electoral process, is tool for a misplace principles of democracy, seemingly compromised electoral body and weak judicial system with dishonest, corrupt, and bias officials. This study recommended that victim of electoral fraud should be criminalise, independent judicial system should be encouraged and foster respect for rule of law.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".