Bibliographic record
Abstract
While social media has become a mainstay of communication in the twenty-first century, many organizations still struggle to include it in their operations. This is no less the case for organizations in the third sector. However, evidence-based practices tying social media activity to social media success are still elusive in the field. Examining the Facebook and Twitter presence of 45 Canadian organizations concerned with education, disaster relief, and environmental advocacy, the authors evaluate social media practices used by third sector organizations. Borrowing from Mark Granovetter’s (1973) work on the strength of social ties, the authors found that disaster relief organizations tended toward activities to build emotionally intense, or “strong,” relationships, while educational organizations offered more informational means to build “weak” relationships based on common interests. Environmental organizations used both strategies, but were less likely to broaden their activities beyond Facebook and Twitter. The authors propose identifying organizations’ weak-tie/strong-tie strategies as a tool for evaluating social media activity in the not-for-profit sector. They argue that co-ordinating both types of strategies is necessary for successful social media campaigns. RÉSUMÉ Bien que les médias sociaux soient devenus omniprésents dans la communication au 21ème siècle, plusieurs organisations tardent à les inclure dans leurs opérations. Ceci n’est pas moins le cas des organismes du troisième secteur. En même temps, la recherche établissant un rapport entre le recours aux médias sociaux et le succès d’une organisation demeure peu concluante. Dans cet article, les auteurs évaluent l’utilisation de médias sociaux par des organisations du troisième secteur en examinant la présence sur Facebook et Twitter de quarante-cinq organismes canadiens se spécialisant en éducation, en secours aux sinistrés et en activisme écologique. En recourant à l’œuvre de Mark Granovetter sur la puissance des liens sociaux, les auteurs ont trouvé que les organismes de secours aux sinistrés tendaient à effectuer des activités axées sur des relations intenses d’un point de vue émotionnel, donc « fortes », tandis que les organismes éducationnels avaient une approche plus informationnelle afin de construire des relations « faibles » fondées sur des intérêts communs. Les organisations environnementales quant à elles employaient les deux stratégies, mais elles étaient moins enclines à élargir leurs activités au-delà de Facebook et Twitter. Les auteurs proposent d’identifier les stratégies d’attaches faibles et fortes comme outils pour évaluer le recours aux médias sociaux dans le secteur sans but lucratif. Ils soutiennent que la coordination des deux types de stratégie est nécessaire pour réussir les campagnes de médias sociaux.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 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".