MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167579344 · doi:10.5430/bmr.v1n3p61

Brand-Building of Pay TV Channel

2012· article· en· W2167579344 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fanbin Zeng, Wang Han

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness and Management Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Studies and Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Education of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsAdvertisingChinaBusinessBroadcasting (networking)Channel (broadcasting)MarketingTelecommunicationsPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It’s important for content of Pay TV Channels to be specialized, individualized and branded which becomes the purpose of specialization and individualization. Only with strong brand effect, can Pay TV Channels succeed in competing with Free TV channels and other media. Differentiation founded on TV brands will be beneficial not only for enhancing brand awareness and customer satisfaction, but for establishing TV media’s strategy system. For instance, in 2004 to 2008, China DTV Media, China’s leading Pay TV operator, put up a brand evaluation system containing market share, brand awareness, brand loyalty as measuring standards, with which the brand-building has been token up during market operation. Actually, in the long-term development, many Free TV brands have been created in China. Among winners of the Top Ten Programs awarded by China Broadcasting and Television Association in 2005, there are five TV programs, all of which are free programs, including Law Online (in CCTV), Nanjing Alive (in Nanjing Broadcast Television), Night News (in Heilongjiang TV), True Love Story (in Hebei TV) and The Past (in Hubei TV) (Zhang Junchan & LuiPeng, 2006). While compared with Brand-Building on Free TV Channels, in China, Pay TV Channels hasn’t walk the path of Brand-Building really. How can it move on better? In this section, there will be some analysis about it.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.151
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBusiness and Management ResearchSame topicMedia Studies and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207