MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097774520 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v13n6p99

Legal Frameworks, Political Environment and Performance of Biosocial Projects in Informal Settlements in Nairobi County, Kenya

2020· article· en· W3097774520 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOperations Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiosocial theoryPoliticsSociologyInterviewQualitative propertyVariablesPublic relationsSocial scienceSocioeconomicsSocial psychologyPsychologyPolitical scienceLawStatisticsAnthropologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This scholarly work studied Legal frameworks, political environment and performance of biosocial projects in informal settlements in Nairobi County, Kenya. Purpose of this scholarly work was to ascertain political environment moderate’s relationship between legal frameworks and performance of biosocial projects in informal settlements in Nairobi County, Kenya. The variable indicators were derived from legal frameworks and political environment indicators as independent variables against performance of biosocial projects indicators as dependent variable of this scholarly work. The study was premised on project theory for the two independent variables and for the dependent variable theory of constraint. In this study Pragmatism and mixed research approach were embraced to examine political environment, legal frameworks and performance of biosocial projects while descriptive and correlational research designs were adopted. Self dispensed questionnaires were administered to gather quantitative data while interview guides were used to collect qualitative data after the pilot testing of research instruments to test validity through content related method and reliability through test-retest criterion. A sample size of 183 individuals from 61 biosocial projects were selected from a target sample of 70 biosocial projects in Nairobi County through Gakuu, Kidombo and Keiyoro, 2016 sampling formula (s= (z/e)2). Quantitative data was computed from structured questionnaires administered to 61 staff members working in the selected biosocial projects and 61 beneficiaries from the biosocial projects besides qualitative in- depth interviews with 61 key informants from State and non-state actors through purposive sampling technique. The statistical tools of analysis that were used were arithmetic mean and the standard deviation for descriptive data whereas Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation (r) in addition to Stepwise Regression (R2) were used as inferential statistics tools of analysis, hypothesis was tested by use of F-tests. To avoid invalidation of statistical analysis, tests of statistical assumptions were carried out before data analysis. From the data analysis the null hypothesis that stated the relationship between legal frameworks and performance of biosocial projects in informal settlements in Nairobi County is not moderated by political environment was accepted with F = 15.207, p =0.000<0.05, r = 0.382, Adjusted R2 = 0.136 in step one against step two where F = 6.263, p =0.000<0.05, r = 0.390, Adjusted R2 = 0.128 and concluded that Adjusted R2 decreased from 0.136 to 0.128 and F statistics reduced from 15.207 to 6.263 the effect of relationship of legal frameworks on performance of biosocial projects.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.270 · 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