MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970432636 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v12n3p167

Constitutional Grounds for Questioning Elections in Nigeria: An Overview

2019· article· en· W2970432636 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Faith O. Osadolor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionStatutePolitical scienceDemocracyLawStatus quoTransparency (behavior)Politics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Periodic elections are major planks of democracy that has its attendant grievance procedure which ensures that the real consent of the governed is sort and obtained. The origination process in Nigeria is through election petitions, which is sui generis. The appropriate electoral statute and the constitution prescribe the grounds for questioning elections in Nigeria. The essence of this paper therefore is to resolve the apparent conflict as to where to predicate the grounds for questioning elections in Nigeria. Is it the Electoral Act, the Constitution or both in pursuit of electoral justice: Quo vadis?

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0060.010
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207