Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.010 |
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".