Sign in or 
Share this
Source categorisation
Quality assessment
Source categorization challenges scanners to assess the evidence and stimulus value of sources, e.g., as "expert," "professional," or "pundit," "amateur," and "fringe." This is NOT meant to be pejorative, only descriptive. It does, to some extent, conflate a judgement of location of emergence of insight (scientific/rational genius vs. artistic/intuitive genius) with the timeframe of emergence (e.g., expert and fringe vs. punditry), the assumption being that something spotted in the popular press is further away from the origin point on the emergence growth curve.
A good source is one that stimulates the reader to think further and helps to classify the current evidence level:
Stimulus
Strong indicators of the stimulus levels of a source come from evaluating the potential impact of the intelligence:
Strong indicators of the reliability and/or credibility of a source comes from evaluating who is presenting the evidence:
The role of the scanner is to seek to improve the initial scan hit by discovering better, more robust material to raise the stimulus and evidence level. If this cannot be found then the scan hit is likely to be on the margins of change.
Depending on the readers interests, these types of categorizations assist in determining where they look for new opportunities, emerging risks, trigger events, disruptions, highly professional or fringe evidence, etc.
Next: Framework Back: Source Selection To: Shaping Tomorrow
Copyright: Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Source categorization challenges scanners to assess the evidence and stimulus value of sources, e.g., as "expert," "professional," or "pundit," "amateur," and "fringe." This is NOT meant to be pejorative, only descriptive. It does, to some extent, conflate a judgement of location of emergence of insight (scientific/rational genius vs. artistic/intuitive genius) with the timeframe of emergence (e.g., expert and fringe vs. punditry), the assumption being that something spotted in the popular press is further away from the origin point on the emergence growth curve.
A good source is one that stimulates the reader to think further and helps to classify the current evidence level:
Stimulus
Strong indicators of the stimulus levels of a source come from evaluating the potential impact of the intelligence:
- Inspiring: very high | high | neutral | low | very low
- Engaging: very high | high | medium | low | very low
- Enabling: very high | high | medium | low | very low
- Novelty : shock | surprise | new news | old news | none
Strong indicators of the reliability and/or credibility of a source comes from evaluating who is presenting the evidence:
- Credentials: expert | professional | pundit | amateur | fringe
- Bias: very impartial | somewhat impartial | balanced| somewhat partial | very partial
- Methodology: robust analysis | partial analysis | commentary | opinion led | speculative
- Assumptions: accurate | deduced | faulty | inaccurate | none
The role of the scanner is to seek to improve the initial scan hit by discovering better, more robust material to raise the stimulus and evidence level. If this cannot be found then the scan hit is likely to be on the margins of change.
Depending on the readers interests, these types of categorizations assist in determining where they look for new opportunities, emerging risks, trigger events, disruptions, highly professional or fringe evidence, etc.
Next: Framework Back: Source Selection To: Shaping Tomorrow
Copyright: Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
sunfirejewels |
Latest page update: made by sunfirejewels
, Jun 29 2009, 12:21 AM EDT
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by sunfirejewels
18 words added 23 words deleted view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
None
More Info: links to this page
|
There are no threads for this page.
Be the first to start a new thread.
