MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051373836 · doi:10.1177/0196859912459756

Consumers

2012· article· en· W2051373836 on OpenAlexafffund
Lee McGuigan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Communication Inquiry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCommodityArgument (complex analysis)AdvertisingCurrencyThe InternetBusinessCapitalismReading (process)Goods and servicesRelation (database)MarketingEconomicsPolitical scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPoliticsEconomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article tests Dallas Smythe’s thesis of the audience commodity against emergent marketing paradigms and commercial models organized around interactive television. Television technologies, including various internet-connected content delivery platforms, increasingly combine the technical and administrative infrastructure to support direct conversion of viewers into consumers of the products displayed in advertisements and programs. Through a broad reading of the audience commodity it is suggested herein that, contrary to most appraisals, Smythe recognized audiences as both economic products and social products—people living as producers and consumers in capitalism. Smythe’s thesis has particular currency in relation to an interactive television storefront because the essence of the audience commodity resides in the capacity of viewers to consume branded goods and services. This argument is ever more salient as ongoing developments in database marketing and electronic commerce illustrate that advertiser-supported television manufactures consumers as economic and social products within a nearly ubiquitous digitized marketplace.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2820.091

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Communication InquirySame topicDigital Games and MediaFrench-language works237,207