MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1491966354

Managing the Future: A Guide to Forecasting and Strategic Planning in the 21st Century

2012· article· en· W1491966354 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Howard A. Doughty

Notice bibliographique

Revue˜The œinnovation journal · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineDecision Sciences
ThématiqueComplex Systems and Decision Making
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPostmodernismIgnoranceNarrativeConversationEnlightenmentSociologyPessimismMedia studiesAestheticsPolitical scienceLawLiteraturePhilosophyArtEpistemology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Stephen M. Millett Managing the Future: A Guide Forecasting and Strategic Planning in the 21st Century Axminster Devon, UK: Triarchy Press, 2011.Reviewed by Howard A. Doughty.The future isn't what it used be in the days of speculative fiction in the manner of Jules Verne and H. G. Wells. It's not even like the worlds of the often pessimistic Harlan Ellison, or of preternatural optimists like Buckminster Fuller, Walt Disney and Dr. Tomorrow. There's an added layer of darkness in the lens. We are more attuned postmodern films and novels which detach us from historical narratives altogether and transform us into cyborgs of various sorts.Comfortable Enlightenment-era assumptions about ending tyranny and ignorance, poverty and disease are not taken terribly seriously anymore. More likely, we identify postmodern apocalyptic horsemen when we choose think about such matters at all.Our world is becoming more and more complicated. And, although no one doubts the importance or the impact of technological innovations from supercollider-superconductors in the quest for the God particle emerging nanotechnology, we are more familiar with the limited literacy that is forced upon us by hand-held electronic communications devices. Restricted 140-character versions of reality, the global conversation on the Internet now affirms the triumph of banality while simultaneously invading what used be called privacy and establishing surveillance systems for massive corporations-both public and private-which is not quite what Marshall McLuhan may have meant when he invited us frolic in boundless global village. We are living the future day-by-day and most of us do not grasp even its most obvious features.The verb to is also slippery. A quick perusal of my modest collection of print and pixelized dictionaries assures me that it has a good deal do with exercising control. The implied degree and kind of control, however, varies.At its most formidable, involves domination:* In labour relations management rights are typically those aspects of an organization that are wholly within the purview of the executives of an enterprise or their delegates and outside the influence of trade unions-never mind individual employees;* Management may also involve the legalities of administration in, for instance, cases like estate supervision where, for a fee, a firm of lawyers and accountants may be empowered take care of the assets of a deceased person, assume the obligation exercise fiduciary responsibilities, and act in the best interest of the beneficiaries of a last will and testament and not itself;* in medicine, physicians are said manage a patient by providing diagnosis and treatment, even in the case of a terminal disease; and,* in common language, we may find not success but merely survival be the best possible outcome, as in I managed survive the sinking of the ship, despite having been alone at sea for many hours before rescue.With such an array of possibilities, what does it mean manage the future? Do we expect a guidebook for forecasting and strategic planning predict otherwise unanticipated events and circumstances. Should we think that we can be told how dominate our environment years or decades hence? Or, is it enough explain how foretell and desperately avoid immediately impending disasters, or see opportunities that we can exploit our advantage next week, month or year?I have been reading books by alleged futurists for close fifty years and, speak plainly, most of them can generously be called scams and shams. That does not, of course, mean that they have not been influential. Some of the popular titles which admittedly rose slightly above the level of snake-oil are:* Future Shock (1970) by Newt Gingrich's favourite public intellectual, Alvin Toffler;* The Coming of Postindustrial Society by Daniel Bell, who famously declared. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,017
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCommunication savante
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,480
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0170,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0020,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,197
Tête enseignante GPT0,398
Écart entre enseignants0,201 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revue˜The œinnovation journalMême sujetComplex Systems and Decision MakingTravaux en français237 207