MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411656832 · doi:10.51847/j8v40fyccc

10.51847/j8v40FYCcC

2000· article· en· W4411656832 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTime to knit · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEuropean Monetary and Fiscal Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresidential electionPoliticsPresidential systemPolitical scienceBusinessLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of unregulated use of money in politics did not begin today.There are antecedents in the history of modern Nigeria, beginning with the politics of nationalism in the 1950s, similar to rent-seeking behaviours of parties, politicians and voters.For example, the absence of strict legislation to regulate party finance made it possible for politicians and political parties to engage in illegal party financing and corruption in the Nigeria's First Republic.The electoral laws under which elections were conducted in the 1950s and 1960swere derived from the provision of the British Representation of the Peoples Act of 1948/9 and its regulations.The 1959 elections were conducted under the provision of the Nigeria (Electoral Provisions) Order-in-Council, LN 117 of 1958 enacted by the British Parliament.During this period, there was no clearly defined regulatory framework on party finance and political party funding was primarily carried out through private parties since candidates were responsible Granted that some efforts have been made to reform laws regulating political campaigns and party funding, campaign financing and their abuses thereof remain shrouded in mystery.It is in this connection that this chapter critically interrogates the challenges of political parties and election/campaign financing in Nigeria, with specific emphasis on the 2015 general elections.The chapter demonstrates that despite the existence of an enabling Act to sanitize campaign financing in Nigeria, the suspicious manner in which the presidential candidates of the two major political parties mobilized huge campaign funds in the wake of the 2015 general elections, reveals not just the contempt with which they hold this law, but also exposes the political corruption and commercialization of the electioneering process.The methodology made extensive use of secondary sources and employed the technique of content analysis to analyse both descriptive, narrative, and empirical data on election expenses.The chapter also argues that the commercialization of the electioneering process does not only disempower and dispossess citizens during the post-election period, but has other far reaching-implications for the nation's democratic trajectory.The chapter concludes by positing that there is the need, not just to strengthen institutions but, to make them more proactive in the discharge of their statutory responsibilities.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.9720.963

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.156
Teacher spread0.142 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTime to knit→Same topicEuropean Monetary and Fiscal Policies→French-language works237,207→