And about half those misdiagnoses could harm the patient.
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Aim of this paper is to introduce the complex system perspective into retail market analysis. Currently, to understand the retail market means to search for local patterns at the micro level, involving the segmentation, separation and profiling of diverse groups of consumers. In other contexts, however, markets are modelled as complex systems. Such strategy is able to uncover emerging regularities and patterns that make markets more predictable, e.g. enabling to predict how much a country’s GDP will grow. Rather than isolate actors in homogeneous groups, this strategy requires to consider the system as a whole, as the emerging pattern can be detected only as a result of the interaction between its self-organizing parts. This assumption holds also in the retail market: each customer can be seen as an independent unit maximizing its own utility function. As a consequence, the global behaviour of the retail market naturally emerges, enabling a novel description of its properties, complementary to the local pattern approach. Such task demands for a data-driven empirical framework. In this paper, we analyse a unique transaction database, recording the micro-purchases of a million customers observed for several years in the stores of a national supermarket chain. We show the emergence of the fundamental pattern of this complex system, connecting the products’ volumes of sales with the customers’ volumes of purchases. This pattern has a number of applications. We provide three of them. By enabling us to evaluate the sophistication of needs that a customer has and a product satisfies, this pattern has been applied to the task of uncovering the hierarchy of needs of the customers, providing a hint about what is the next product a customer could be interested in buying and predicting in which shop she is likely to go to buy it.
The retail market as a complex system
Via Complexity Digest
Eli Levine's insight:
With this knowledge and insight into the world that's dawning. One world must be destroyed in order for the new world to come forth; one segment of society must give way to the new in order to facilitate and ease this transition.
The top of society is where and what determines the ease or the possibility of this transition. That is the point that needs to be altered in order to bring about this new dawn.
Unfortunately, it is the point in society that is least willing, although most capable of change. They'll cling to illusions and delusions of relative power over people and unsustainable material wealth than allow for everyone, including themselves, to realize something that could truly be wonderful for our lives, our well-being, and our health as living organisms. This is before we talk about the bottom-up resistance that will be experienced as well, especially if the transition is done badly by the people who are at the top of the given social unit. A shame that something so relatively simple can be so completely complicated and complex to carry out.
Since China entered the World Trade Organization in 2001, the massive growth of trade between China and the United States has had a dramatic and negative effect on U.S. workers and the domestic economy.
Eli Levine's insight:
What's good for individual businesses in the financial short run is terrible for them, the economy, and the society in the holistic long run. Just because it's more profitable doesn't mean it's actually going to be good for people, the environment, it the economy outside of business profits. It's not rocket science.
|Rescooped by Eli Levine from Welfare, Disability, Politics and People's Right's|
Citizens' wellbeing is rising to the top of the political agenda in Britain. Just yesterday the government and its partners announced a What Works Centre for Wellbeing which initially has over £3.5 million over three years to investigate the d
Not too light that the work becomes unproductive, yet not too hard that it takes away from productivity. Pay decent wages with profits, even for low skilled employment, and don't sweat the short term profits so much. That's sanity and sustainability. Anything else is abuse or unsustainable.
I hypothesize that a first step to understanding how a government is working with its society is to map it out as a network relative to society. The object is to know how a government is directly and indirectly affecting a society in its present condition. From there, you can do research on how the government is affecting the parts of society it is reaching, which parts of society it is not reaching, and how it is not reaching those parts. From there, you can run computer experiments to see whether there is anything a government can do to change its structure, content, and/or behavior relative to a society and environment, thus enabling the search for optimal positions and policies that the government can take. If you can evaluate and track indicators within a society, you can effectively work to discover the society's "vital" measures, know how those are impacted by government, the environment, or the society's agents themselves.
It should be noted that economic indicators are lumped into the social indicators automatically and are considered a measure of the society's vitality, potential, sustainability, and survivability. Economies are networks as well and can be integrated into the larger social network graph as a "layer" that can be added to the overall graph. This can hypothetically be an integrated "overview" layer of the social world, kind of like how we can map out the networks of police, fire protection, healthcare, sewage, electricity, Internet, education, water, food, finance, taxation, goods, and service coverage that exists within and composes a society and it's economy independent of each other, with other parts, or all together, to get a comprehensive view of the social organism and the governmental organ relative and within the social organism.
In the end, it's all networks, overlapping, connecting, binding, flexing, and adapting to changing environmental, geological, geographical, political, social, and economic factors. The first step is to map it all out. The next step is to learn how parts affect other parts. The final step is to understand how to make those key decisions and choices within these networks such that you do the least amount of actual harm while doing the most amount of actual good. Reality is the judge; no human has that ability. The policies and actions will either work, not work, or work differently than was anticipated. Once we figure out how to map these networks and interconnected "small world" networks, we can begin to make more informed choices from government with regards to the policies we pursue, the laws and programs we draft to accomplish these policy aims, and how we enact and execute the laws and programs to maximize utility for the SOCIETY, which in turn, maximizes utility for the government and its members.
You want to govern forever?
I know that that is generally feasible, provided you've got a good heart, a good brain, a Hell of a sense of self interest, a genuine empathetic sense towards others' feelings and needs, the ability to admit mistakes and make real changes within yourself and within organizations' policies and procedures, and to communicate effectively with the lay public, such that you listen for what they need, and they actually comprehend what you're doing, why you're doing it to get those needs satisfied.
This is a BASIC model of how to develop and operate a government based on my comprehension of things as of 10/28/2014 CE. It is what will, I think, most likely stand the test of time in principle, if not entirely in practice throughout the changing conditions of humanity, its environment, and the universe as a whole. It will need to first, be accepted by the individual societies of the world before it can worked into the individual societies and cultures according to their own networked organizations and own processes of operating the network. This is not a one-size fits all solution by any stretch of the imagination. It is just a hypothesis for how to begin producing a government that operates in line with natural laws rather than on only the beliefs, sentiments, biases, opinions, and ignorance of individual human beings. Its aim is to honestly help the public in a self-interested fashion, from the perspective of the policy-maker and for the public that is served by the given government.
Map first. Study second. Experiment third. Execute fourth. Hold off all changes and experiments in practice until the first three stages are completed first.
May this benefit all living beings, on Earth, and beyond, from now, until the end of time, and beyond.
Here are some observations and insights that were shared on social media this past fortnight. I call these Friday’s Finds.
“We don’t see something until we have the right metaphor to let us perceive it.” – Thomas Kuhn – via @tobiasmeyer
“Humans require the difficult and messy social routing protocol of trust.” – Valdis Krebs @orgnet – via @voinonen
“What if sucessful projects having a plan is just survivior bias?” – @drunkcod
Half-baked ideas – by @kmpinner #PKMastery
Way cool network science.
This is a way of modeling and making sense of our world, even if it's not a perfectly accurate way of constructing our social and environmental worlds. Now, to put these techniques into practice and study, to see if we can govern and manage our world more effectively with this metaphor.