Beyond Arms and Armaments: Resolving Nigeria’s Insurgency Crisis through Strategic Public Relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the first known manifestation of insurgency in Nigeria credited to a university student of Niger Delta extraction, Isaac Japer Adaka Boro in 1965, Nigeria’s insurgency crisis has precariously grown in scope and sophistication. There seems to be an intensifying thirst for blood and a spiraling preference for violence as means of expressing pent-up frustration or anger either directed at the state or its people. The conflagration has taken a hefty toll on the soul of Nigeria. This study sought to: examine the nature and causes of Nigeria’s insurgency, determine the ideological motivations fueling it, profile the perpetrators of the insurgency, and propose functional public relations strategies for resolving the crisis. The desktop research method was used to qualitatively analyse extant data and literature. Relying on Stakeholder theory and Invitational Rhetoric theory, the paper argues that the enduring solution to Nigeria’s insurgency rests not in arms and armaments. It identifies lack of mutual trust, shared understanding and absence of a sense of corporate existence as fundamental to the crisis. The study theorises that there would be no need for a fight if Nigeria is administered using the strategic crisis communication template of a corporate organisation, where parts of the whole appreciate their roles and responsibilities and contribute according to rules towards attainment of pre-determined and consensually agreed goals. The study recommends the non-kinetic deployment of public relations strategies such as lobbying, dialogue, persuasive engagement, crisis communication, stakeholding, invitational rhetoric, in resolving Nigeria’s protracted insurgency crisis, in the interest of all.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".