Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the feasibility of discovering business information from search engine query data. Specifically the study tried to determine whether search volumes of company names are correlated with the companies’ business performance and position data. Design/methodology/approach – The top 50 US companies in the 2012 Fortune 500 list were included in the study. The following business performance and position data were collected: revenues, profits, assets, stockholders’ equity, profits as a percentage of revenues, and profits as a percentage of assets. Data on the search volumes of the company names were collected from Google Trends, which is based on search queries users enter into Google. Google Trends data were collected in the two scenarios of worldwide searches and US searches. Findings – The study found significant correlations between search volume data and business performance and position data, suggesting that search engine query data can be used to discover business information. Google Trends’ worldwide search data were better than the US domestic search data for this purpose. Research limitations/implications – The study is limited to only one country and to one year of data. Practical implications – Publicly available search engine query data such as those from Google Trends can be used to estimate business performance and position data which are not always publicly available. Search engine query data are timelier than business data. Originality/value – This is the first study to establish a relationship between search engine query data and business performance and position data.
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 | 0.010 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".