Marketing in a Web 2.0 world with a Web 1.0 mentality: the challenge of social web marketing in academic institutions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The internet has changed the way people live, work and communicate in a very short period of time. It was not that long ago that e-mail was considered the 'new wave' of communication (Wilkes, 1990) and the possibility of near instantaneous communication resulted in previous communication technologies being referred to as 'snail mail' due to its antiquated pace. While e-mail was originally adopted by the young, technically savvy generations, now older generations have followed suit. This pattern is consistent with each new wave of technology that enters the market. Many companies are content to offer their static web pages out to the general public, but the emerging generations are being raised on a more interactive and dynamic Web 2.0 world. In order to market effectively to these emerging generations, businesses and managers are forced to evaluate and adopt emerging technologies at a greater pace. This paper addresses the challenges that academic institutions face when moving to a Web 2.0 marketing concept when legacy thinking (Web 1.0) still resides in the organisation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it