Is Social Marketing Experiencing an Identity Crisis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to discuss the crisis of identity and ethical issues addressed to social marketing and understand its current proposal. This is a critical paper built from researches of several publishing material such journals and books on social marketing in order to know why social marketing principles are misrepresented. It was possible to find numerous concepts addressed to social marketing, like cause related marketing, societal marketing, social responsibility, green marketing and institutional advertising. Three criticisms are emerging in social marketing: lack of focus on strategies; clear goals of organisation of the campaign producers; and the unethical pattern of the professionals. Social marketing is an alternative for improving services in social campaigns aiming at getting better results. The main purpose of social marketing is the behaviour change any other purposes do not concern social marketing. These misunderstandings about social marketing are increasingly producing misrepresentations regarding its principles.
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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".