MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211543081 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v14n6p87

Prebendalism and Rural Poverty in Cross River State, Nigeria

2021· article· en· W3211543081 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Felix Onen Eteng, Ikechukwu Jonathan Opara, Hilary Idiege Adie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrassrootsPovertyGovernment (linguistics)Socioeconomic statusState (computer science)Economic growthSocioeconomicsDevelopment economicsRural areaRural povertyPoor peopleLocal government areaPolitical scienceLocal governmentEconomicsSociologyPublic administrationPopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prebendalism and rural poverty are two main variables whose problems have negatively impacted on the developmental process of the state. This condition at the grassroots is commonly observed in the area of low income, poor shelter, poor health facilities, and in other socioeconomic wellbeing of the people. In this study, the main objective is to investigate the effect of prebendalism on rural poverty in cross river state. A quantitative research method was utilized. The findings of this study shows that prebendalism and rural poverty as the bane of development in the state are difficult to be eradicated. The implication is that unless prebendalism is eradicated, the wellbeing of the people at the grassroots will be a mirage. Therefore, this study attempts to provide policy directive along the line of the need for government to review its implementation of poverty programmes at the grassroots by eradicating or minimizing prebendalism.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

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 studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207