MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1956183446 · doi:10.1002/pa.1475

Do good, goes bad, gets ugly: Kony 2012

2013· article· en· W1956183446 on OpenAlexaff
Anjali Bal, Chris Archer‐Brown, Karen Robson, Daniel Häll

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Affairs · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsCitizen journalismCompetitor analysisAction (physics)Media studiesSociologyAdvertisingPolitical scienceLawBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With millions of videos with different messages uploaded per year, companies are increasingly looking for means of making their messages stand against competitors. A theory of viral marketing is used to analyze and understand the spread of—and reactions to—a controversial political mega‐viral video, Kony 2012. Through this analysis, policy makers and marketers could gain a better understanding of how they can use mediums such as YouTube to extend their messages. Kony 2012 concerns the highly publicized leader of a Ugandan guerrilla group, Joseph Kony. The video was a call to action and an attempt to educate the world about the atrocities committed in Sudan. The video was made by an organization called the Invisible Children and created by filmmaker Jason Russell. Following the extraordinary success of Kony 2012, Jason Russell was infamously arrested in San Diego for indecent exposure. The story and video of Russell's arrest and breakdown similarly went viral. The framework that follows analyzes the virality of a political video and the downfall of its creator. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.014
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public AffairsSame topicDigital Marketing and Social MediaFrench-language works237,207