Consumer Value and Modes of Media Reception: Audience Response to Ryan, a Computer-animated Psycho-realist Documentary and its Own Documentation in Alter Egos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consumer value and value creation are fundamental concepts\nin marketing, management and in literature on organizations,\nbut are almost never considered in the context of\nscreen-based �experience� products. In this paper, the authors\ndepart from the prevailing approaches to audience or\nreception studies by investigating the experience value the\nconsumption of a screen-based product has for the spectator.\nUsing the Q-methodology and Holbrook�s consumer\nvalue framework (1999), they empirically identify audience\nsegments based on television viewers� subjective experience\nwith an innovative film product: the award-winning,\ncomputer-animated short documentary Ryan. The film uses\ncreative state-of-the art animation to tell a compelling story\nin ways that stretch the documentary genre. The authors\nuncover and describe four audience segments. Unexpectedly,\nthese four segments bear a strong resemblance to the\nfour principal modes of media reception proposed recently\nby Michelle (2007), thereby creating a potentially fruitful\nlink between the framework for consumer experience\nvalue and media reception studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".