Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nigeria’s federalism has been distorted from its original vision and structure. This situation presents the concept of federalism as a weak form of government that needs to be transformed for effective performance. The British colonial masters, and our foremost patriotic nationalists, adopted federalism as the best form of government for a country that is glaringly diversified in geographic, ethnic, language and religious constitution. At its initial practice in Nigeria, the regions were autonomous in governance, finance and duties. The military incursion into governance and politics, distorted the practice of decentralization for centralization. Noting that Federalism has propelled countries like USA, Canada, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Australia, etc. to an enviable political administration and economy, there is need for Nigeria to re appraise her practice of federalism in order for her to transform the practice of democracy and her economy and impact positively on her national development and foreign policy. This paper attempts to examine Nigeria’s federalism, sieve the strength in the philosophy of federalism, determine where Nigeria’s dilemma in the practice is anchored and suggest ways forward. The purpose of this paper is to expose the strength in the philosophy of federalism and to strengthen its practice in Nigeria. Key Words: Federalism, Exploration, Dilemma
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".