Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strategic Foresight is usually understood to be a process for exploring possible and plausible futures, or an ability to better anticipate and prepare for what those futures may hold. This perspective may reflect the majority of foresight practice, but, intellectually and in terms of potential value, it is incomplete and unnecessarily constrains the scope and clarity of insights Foresight could provide. The article argues for Foresight to be deployed on the full context of the selected theme; on the dynamically evolving set of factors of four frames. The frames are the past, the present, the future, and the commitment those contributing to the Foresight bring to the exercise. Each of the four frames is influenced, more or less depending on the theme and the timing, by the state of one or more of the other three. A Foresight exercise that omits consideration of even only one frame weakens its output and may, in times of unexpected or extreme disruption for the theme being explored, render the output unusable without major adjustment.
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 | 0.025 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".