Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lgbo leadership systems had been fraught with concepts that often make the society seem egalitarian in nature. The reality seems to contain variants that could be analyzed as such. But modernity and the inherent traditions of social change have also created its variants according to the local groups that practice them. The structure of the autochthonous Igbo leadership shows a credible democratic cum republican dispensation. But most of the adherent’s positions are titular. Hegemony as it suggests in the Igbo society is a relative term that needs Classification and clarification. Through Visual arts and some empirical investigation this study explains the modal changes that have affected the Igbo leadership system in Nigeria through Visual Art. Abatete, Nri, Ufuma, Npkor, Umuoji, Nnewi in Anambra state, all core Igbo towns are used as examples. The reality at leadership influence in the changes and development of the Igbo society in Nigeria and elsewhere is a relevant factor to the characterization of relationships between the Igbo’s and their neighbours. Although the introduction of warrant chief’s by the Colonial Masters seem to have distabilised the leadership structure of the people, they still hold strictly to traditions, but are flexible to changes that they consider viable to the development of the society. The Visual Art is given attention because it helps to define and identify the influence and changes that make Igbo leadership structure contemporary; for example in the regal regalia, greeting, breaking of kolanuts, the use of materials and the general life-style, transformations that have given new meaning to genealogy or pedigree. Lineages, kinship or kingship may no more accord adherent’s rights to heraldry or recruitment of political leadership. Chiefdom ceases to be hereditary. These and other trajectories and provocative themes are features of this study.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".