MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415980958 · doi:10.5539/hes.v15n4p483

Exploring the Impact of Nigeria’s Oil and Gas Local Content Policy on Higher Education Institutions: A Social Network Analysis Approach

2025· article· W4415980958 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Oluwatosin Lagoke, Adewale Ogunmodede, Adekunle Stephen Toromade

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnergy
TopicOil, Gas, and Environmental Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderContent analysisSocial network analysisScrutinyCentralityHigher educationStakeholder analysisCommission

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study employs social network analysis (SNA) to examine the impact of Nigeria's local content development (LCD) policy on higher education institutions (HEIs), specifically focusing on employment and training. Drawing from a multiplicity of stakeholders identified, these were subjected to critical scrutiny and seven key stakeholders were selected: the Federal Government, HEI lecturers, students, young employees, the Nigerian University Commission (NUC), the Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board (NCDMB), and industry players from both multinational and indigenous oil and service companies. Using documentary evidence and 32 semi-structured interviews, the study found a significant gap between HEL and FGN, however, there appears to be close ties with HEL and other stakeholder groups and the same is the case with FGN. Betweenness centrality values ranged from 0.0 to 1.417, with an overall network density of 76%, positioning the Federal Government as a central broker. However, a 24% residual unconnectedness suggests significant gaps in stakeholder relationships, corroborated by interview responses. These findings underscore critical implications for the development of Nigeria’s HEI sector and the broader scope of policy implementation, highlighting the necessity for enhanced stakeholder collaboration to fulfil the LCD policy’s objectives as per the NOGIC Act.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.205 · 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.

Study designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicOil, Gas, and Environmental IssuesFrench-language works237,207