MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W155954938

Promoting the Websites of Community-Based Organisations

2010· book-chapter· en· W155954938 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueVictoria University Research Repository (Victoria University) · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNonprofit Sector and Volunteering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSophisticationPromotion (chess)Theme (computing)Online and offlineSocial mediaPublic relationsBusinessOnline communityMarketingPolitical scienceSociologyWorld Wide WebComputer scienceSocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Community-based organisations (CBOs) are a widely diverse group of organisations that exist to benefit their membership or promote a wider cause. CBOs are increasingly using websites to assist in carrying out their functions. This paper examines the practices of 35 CBOs from Australia, New Zealand and the UK from the viewpoint of how they use offline and online strategies for website promotion. CBOs employed a mix of offline and online promotion strategies – which appeared to relate to the operations of different types of CBOs. There was a level of sophistication that was not expected by the authors. Another interesting result that emerged from the study was that there was a degree of uncertainty as to how social networking websites fit into the web presence of CBOs. --Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy (ANZMAC) Conference 2010 held, Canterbury, New Zealand, 29 November - 1 December 2010. Theme: ‘Doing More with Less'

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it