Quarter of a century of event-management evolution 2000-2024: the general and the special of existing approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research purpose is to conceptualise the main stages and regularities of the development of event management theory in Russia since 2000 to the current times. The methodology includes comparative historical analysis of literature (stage 1), content analysis of data on domestic publication activity (stage 2), comparative analysis of based on foreign research data (stage 3). The first and second stages chronologically consider the development process of the event management and evolution of scientific research; identify time markers of emergence of new contexts and two key directions of the evolution (market and socio-cultural ones); substantiate the contribution of the semantic factor; establish the features of evolutionary transformations and key affected variables; demonstrate and comparatively characterise 6 approaches to management (corresponding to the evolutionary stages) and the seventh forecast direction. At the third stage a comparative characteristic of the development of the event management in scientific-theoretical and applied fields is given; two justifications for the use of the terminological system “event” (marketing and semantic ones) are presented; the features of improving the approaches to the event management (in English-speaking and non-English-speaking fields) during the similar period are characterised and then compared with the features of domestic development. The study results acquired at the third stage outline the field of further research and applications in the sphere of the event management in terms of managing the processes of social development, value-semantic communication in the socio-cultural space. As a whole, the material presented could be used as a practical guide to the selection of a management approach that corresponds to the context of application, and also indicates a possible direction for further theoretical and practical research that may ensures efficiency, competitiveness, and accelerated development
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".