Research on Forecasting: A Quarter-Century Review, 1960-1984
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Before 1960, little empirical research was done on forecasting methods. Since then, the literature has grown rapidly, especially in the area of judgmental forecasting. This research supports and adds to the forecasting guidelines proposed before 1960, such as the value of combining forecasts. New findings have led to significant gains in our ability to forecast and to help people to use forecasts. What have we reamed about forecasting over the past quarter century? Does recent research provide guidance for making more accurate forecasts, obtaining better assessments of uncertainty, or gaining acceptance of our forecasts? I will first describe forecasting principles that were believed to be the most advanced in 1960. Following that, I will examine the evidence produced since 1960. Forecasting Principles in 1960 Forecasts serve many needs in organizations and are employed for both short-range and long-range planning. They help in making decisions on production, personnel, finance, and marketing. Figure 1 shows the types of forecasts that are needed in addressing these decisions. For example, forecasts of competitive actions can help to
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it