MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149741875 · doi:10.1177/0276146708325382

The Wisdom of Consumer Crowds

2008· article· en· W2149741875 on OpenAlexaff
Robert V. Kozinets, Andrea Hemetsberger, Hope Jensen Schau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Macromarketing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrowdsGrassrootsConsumption (sociology)CreativityMarketingSociologyCollective intelligenceSharing economyPublic relationsBusinessKnowledge managementSocial sciencePolitical sciencePsychologySocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Past theories of consumer innovation and creativity were devised before the emergence of the profound collaborative possibilities of technology. With the diffusion of networking technologies, collective consumer innovation is taking on new forms that are transforming the nature of consumption and work and, with it, society and marketing. We theorize, examine, dimensionalize, and organize these forms and processes of online collective consumer innovation. Extending past theories of informationalism, we follow this macro-social paradigm shift into grassroots regions that have irrevocable impacts on business and society. Business and society need categories and procedures to guide their interactions with this powerful and growing phenomenon. We classify and describe four types of online creative consumer communities—Crowds, Hives, Mobs, and Swarms. Collective innovation is produced both as an aggregated byproduct of everyday information consumption and as a result of the efforts of talented and motivated groups of innovative e-tribes.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.023
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations527
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MacromarketingSame topicDigital Marketing and Social MediaFrench-language works237,207