MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327199198 · doi:10.2501/jar-41-4-71-81

A Tale of Two Studies: Replicating ‘Advertising Effectiveness and Content Evaluation in Print and on the Web’

2001· article· en· W2327199198 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advertising Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReplication (statistics)ReplicateAdvertisingSample (material)Computer scienceWorld Wide WebPsychologyMathematicsBusinessChemistryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>ABSTRACT</h3> We replicate, using adult web users, a study comparing advertising effectiveness and content evaluation in print and on the web (Gallagher, Foster, and Parsons, 2000). As in the original study involving students, the replication found that advertising was equally effective in the two media. However, while the original study found that evaluation of an article containing advertising was lower when it appeared on the web than when it appeared in print, this result was not replicated. Examination of two subgroups showed that results for the subgroup resembling the student sample were consistent with the original study. We propose conditions under which student samples are appropriate.

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 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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.281 · 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