MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403092305 · doi:10.1515/ldr-2024-0082

Modernization of Nigeria’s Mining Industry: The Case for Participation and Sustainable Development of Local Communities

2024· article· en· W4403092305 on OpenAlexaff
Martin-Joe Ezeudu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Law and Development Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModernization theorySustainable developmentPolitical scienceEconomic growthDevelopment economicsEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To retract from its overdependence on crude oil fortunes and be a participant in the green energy economy, Nigeria has recently begun to revive and modernize its mining industry. The modernization is driven by the Nigerian Minerals and Mining Act, 2007 (NMMA) and Regulations promulgated thereunder. This paper examines whether and to what extent the NMMA and the Regulations provide sufficient legal architecture for local communities to meaningfully participate in mineral development decisions and processes in ways that advance the course of their sustainable development. It acknowledges that participation or meaningful consultation with local communities in regard to decisions or activities pertaining to resource development is a modern strategy for ensuring that local communities obtain the benefits of sustainable development and measures the compliance of the NMMA and its Regulations against the standard tools developed under international law. It attributes the human and environmental sustainability crisis in the Niger Delta region to the failure of the Nigerian government to involve the oil host communities early on in the oil development and governance scheme and warns that Nigeria should not repeat the same error as it embarks on modernizing the solid mineral industry.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designOther design
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 venueThe Law and Development ReviewSame topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207