MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

GLOBAL FORECAST OF US NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL

2016· article· en· W2554727855 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Y. Lukashin, L.I. RAHLINA

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Economy and International Relations · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDefense, Military, and Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceRegional scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper gives an analysis of the background, main trends, scenarios and factors of the long-term development of the world till 2030 which are exposed in forecasts of the National Intelligence Council (NIC) in its report of 2012. A comparison of these forecasts with reality for recent years is given. The lack of a series of important events and tendencies in the world development is found in this report. Sometimes authors consider that fact as a forecast error in other cases as an attempt to place the USA and the consequences of their activity in a good light. Methodology of long-term forecasting of NIC is close to foresight. First of all the authors are interested in estimation of new role of the USA in changing World. They have constructed two global indexes of state power: one to estimate relative diplomatic power, the other to estimate relative material power. Forecasts were obtained with imitation computer model “International Futures” which included 6 relative dynamic sub-models with more than 2000 indicators on 70 states and regions of the world. It allowed consider different scenarios of development. Special part of the report was devoted to revolutionary technologies and economic growth. Many conclusions on demographic, urbanization trends, economic growth, shortage of water etc. are realistic. Weights of Russia, China, Japan in world economy are diminishing. China will leave behind the USA economically until 2030. Crisis of Eurozone and its disintegration are discussed in the report. Really, the consequences of “Color revolutions” and “Arabian spring” in which the USA undoubtedly took part are not estimated properly. The role of the USA in many cases as a factor of peace and development is overestimated. Thesis about “damping of Islamic terrorism” is not true. Problem of Ukraine isn’t even mentioned. Crisis of Eurozone with millions refugees is underestimated. Non-controllable Islamic migration into Europe was not predicted. Disintegration of 15 countries is pointed out as possible. However, this list doesn’t contain the Great Britain, Canada and other countries. As it is known, 29 American states want to leave the USA peacefully. Anti-Russian sanctions and Russian counter-sanctions, new groups BRICS, TIKKS are not taken into account. Consequences of shale revolution were mistaken. New integration and disintegration processes are going. Divergence of forecasts and reality is inevitable. In some cases it is due to quick changes of the world and in others due to subjective point of view of the forecaster. 

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Economy and International RelationsSame topicDefense, Military, and Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207