MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390544342 · doi:10.47191/ijsshr/v7-i01-06

Human Capital Investment and Labour Force Participation in Nigeria

2024· article· en· W4390544342 on OpenAlexaff
Cynthia C. F. Dikeogu-Okoroigwe, Akunya L. Ifeanyichukwu, Nwizu Esther Amarachi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Social Science and Human Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsFanshawe College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman capitalGovernment (linguistics)Investment (military)Proxy (statistics)Capital expenditureEconomicsDescriptive statisticsHuman resourcesBusinessLabour economicsEconomic growthDemographic economicsPolitical scienceFinancePoliticsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study investigated the effect of human capital investment on labour force participation in Nigeria from 1990 to 2021. The study used Government Expenditure on Education, Government Expenditure on Health and Government Expenditure on Research and Development to proxy human capital investment as the independent variables while labour force participation rate was used as the dependent variable. Descriptive statistics, unit root test, vector error correction model test were employed to analyze the data. The study reveals that Government Expenditure on Education (XEDU) had a negative and significant impact on Labour force participation (LBFP) in Nigeria; Government Expenditure on health (XHLT) has a positive, but statistically insignificant impact on Labour force participation (LBFP) in Nigeria. The study thus concluded that human capital investment did not promote labour force participation in Nigeria. The study recommends that there is the need for the government in Nigeria to comply with the bench mark of 26% specified by UNESCO. There is the need to improve on the pay package of the health workers and teachers at all levels of education. The government should adopt efficient planning and monitoring.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Social Science and Human ResearchSame topicFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207