Стратегический менеджмент и феномен «Метис» как факторы построения эффективных стратегических моделей в политическом пространстве
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article emphasizes the conceptual importance of the strategic management as the methodology which formed the basis for strategic modeling studies in contemporary academic field. The strategic management is defined by the author as the set of the policy decisions that affect on the perspective development of strategic models in politics, as well as the range of operational activities within a specific temporal interval that provides rapid response to the external conflicts in the sphere of modern politics. The article also recognizes the need to draw attention to the analysis of the concept of metis, proposed by J.C. Scott in his book «Seeing Like a State». Being used in the field of the political strategies implementation the specified concept is supposed to transform qualitatively major strategic techniques, which are common for economic studies, by claiming the need to analyze the fundamental laws of the development of political and social systems in historical perspective. Consequently, being opposed to classical deductive, epistemological knowledge metis forms a kind of conceptual integrity of fundamental historical and philosophical aspects of human existence, without which theoretical analysis of strategic modeling in political sphere is not able to exert a fully positive impact. Thus metis is designed to overcome the tendency to simplify strategic models both in the field of political competition, and political governance, and as a result, to abolish wide-spread practice of artificial imposing of the standardized ineffective patterns of state 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.006 |
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".