Marketing in a Web 2.0 world with a Web 1.0 mentality: the challenge of social web marketing in academic institutions
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.037 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".