MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988553505 · doi:10.1002/mar.20427

Unveiling videos: Consumer‐generated ads as qualitative inquiry

2011· article· en· W1988553505 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Berthon, Leyland Pitt, Philip DesAutels

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Marketing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsService (business)Context (archaeology)AmbivalenceAdvertisingSocial mediaConsumer behaviourQualitative researchIronyPhenomenonSociologyPsychologyBusinessMarketingSocial psychologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Companies spend millions of dollars researching consumers, consumer attitudes to brands, and consumer uses of products. Yet the irony is that consumers are now doing this research themselves and posting their material to video‐sharing sites such as YouTube. In this paper we argue that the BASIC IDS framework (Cohen, 1999 ) for dimensional qualitative research can be used to deconstruct consumer‐generated videos to yield valuable insights into the paradoxes of consumer–service interactions. One category of service that has gained huge media attention of late, and yet is poorly understood, is the phenomenon of online social networks. Using three consumer‐generated ads about the social networking site Facebook, we explore the paradoxes of consumer–service interaction, namely consumers' ambivalent attitudes to the service, how the consumer uses and is used by the service, how the service both facilitates behavior and changes behavior, and how the service mediates social interactions yet drives social actors. Finally, we locate the findings in terms of the wider context of Gen Y and the digital revolution, specify limitations, and cite implications and avenues for future research. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.014
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations41
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology and MarketingSame topicDigital Marketing and Social MediaFrench-language works237,207