MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045125225 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v12n10p45

Perception of Pupils, on Home Grown School Feeding Programme in Ebonyi State, South-East Nigeria

2020· article· en· W3045125225 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jonathan Ogbonna Igboji, Prince Christian Ifeanachor Umoke, MaryJoy Umoke, Augustine Alugbala Nwazunku, Chioma Adaora Nwalieji, Emmanuel Uchechukwu Umoke, Rosemary N. Onwe, Emmanuel Ifeanyi Nwafor, Clara Nneka Nwalieji

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionNull hypothesisGovernment (linguistics)Test (biology)PopulationStatisticLocal government areaMedicinePsychologyMedical educationGeographyEnvironmental healthLocal governmentMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the study was to determine the perception of pupils on the Home Grown School Feeding Programme in Ebonyi State, South-East Nigeria. The research utilized a cross-sectional survey research design on a population of 66591 pupils in the selected public primary schools. A sample of 540 pupils was used for the study. The instrument for data collection is a 30-item “Questionnaire on Perception of Pupils on Home Grown School Feeding Programme (QPPHGSFP).” Four hundred and eighty-six (486) copies of each questionnaire were administered and 483 (99.4%) were retrieved. Data were analyzed using frequencies and percentages. Chi-square statistic was used to test the null hypothesis at a p<0.05 level of significance. Result showed that HGSFP makes the pupils to enroll, attend, remain in school. Pupils like the quality and the size of the food served, and it was locally produced. Age, sex, and class level was not significant (p>0.05) while the location was significant (p<0.05). Conclusively pupils’ perception was good on HGSFP. We recommend that the government and other stakeholders in charge of the programme should remain committed to providing the needed resources for the smooth running of the programme to improve the educational infrastructure of rural communities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicPoverty, Education, and Child WelfareFrench-language works237,207