Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to examines the intrigues, power play and accusations surrounding the National Assembly budgetary allocations between 1999 and 2016.This is because since it was inaugurated in June 1999, the Legislature of Nigeria's Fourth Republic has been roundly defined as an enigmatic one, due to the many twists and turns which accompanied its leadership and membership.It is no longer news that Nigerian legislators are the highest paid lawmakers in the world.When this fact was first revealed a few years ago, the federal lawmakers tried to justify the jumbo pay package without any success.The data for this study was generated from Focus Group Discussion and documentary sources which include books, journals and online materials.The technique of content analysis constituted our data analysis technique.Among the conclusion drawn is for Nigeria to return to the core argument that by paying excessively high salaries and emoluments to top public officials; in particular, permanent secretaries, ministers and legislators, we are mortgaging the rights of our people to development.We suggested among others the need to spend the bulk of available public resources to provide improved infrastructure, health and education to our citizens.As petroleum revenues continue to decline, the reality on the ground is that we can no longer sustain the current expenditure profile we are running the paper concluded.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.949 | 0.938 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".