Promoting Disabled Persons’ Belongingness in Elite Circles of Nigerian Public Administration Setups: Diagnosis and Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzes the intrinsic causes of disabled persons' marginalization from elite circles in Nigerian public administration organizations. Its foci among other things are to proffer measures for Nigeria's context of disabled persons' advancement into public bureaucracies' assembly of decision-makers, promote their topmost belongingness in public policy governance, offer ways to sustain disability-friendly public personnel promotion stratagem, propose means to realize public sector-friendly disability inclusivity. Political culture theory is espoused as the theoretical framework. The study parallels the qualitative methodology of a phenomenological inclination. Perceptions, views, and notions on how to promote disability-friendly policies, across all Nigerian public ministries, departments, and agencies (MDGs), toward facilitating upward mobility of disabled public administrators into directorate positions in the public services, derived from questionnaires, interviews, and correlated document analysis constituted data for the study. Content analysis approach guided by heuristic re-constructionism epistemology was adopted for analyzing data. Data from questionnaires were presented in quantitative content analysis. The study finds that there persist low political will towards domestication and implementation of globally agreed affirmative statutes for sustainable advancement of the education, talents, employment, promotion, and generally inclusion of disabled persons, particularly into the elite circle of Nigerian public bureaucracies. The finding mentioned above highlights the immanent variables that constitute major obstacles to the disabled public personnel belongingness as elite public administrators in determining the outputs and outcomes of public administration in Nigeria. It recommends, amongst others, prioritization of disabled persons' inclusion into the top staff echelon of public administration's MDGs across all the Nigerian tiers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".