MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046200886 · doi:10.1287/mksc.1100.0634

<b>Rejoinder</b>—Implications of “Online Display Advertising: Targeting and Obtrusiveness”

2011· article· en· W2046200886 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

VenueMarketing Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSafeguardingDisplay advertisingWork (physics)MarketingConsumer behaviourConsumer privacyOnline advertisingEconomicsAdvertisingInternet privacyThe InternetInformation privacyBusinessComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The commentaries on our work suggest several broader implications of our findings as well as a concern that we understate the size of the effect. In this rejoinder, we discuss our views on the regulatory implications, the implications for firm strategies, and the implications for our understanding of the underlying behavioral processes. We also acknowledge that our original calculation of $464 million in cost savings for industry is conservative. We conclude with a call for “privacy engineering” research that combines computer science tools with an understanding of consumer behavior and economics to improve marketing and economic outcomes while safeguarding consumer privacy.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.275 · 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