MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2396344332

Some Research Opportunities on Twitter Advertising.

2013· article· en· W2396344332 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

VenueIEEE Data(base) Engineering Bulletin · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb Data Mining and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaComputer scienceAdvertisingOnline advertisingDomain (mathematical analysis)Advertising researchWorld Wide WebAdvertising campaignBusinessThe Internet
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social media have enjoyed a rapidly increasing adoption among users in recent years. Millions of users execute billions of actions (in form of tweets, messages, replies, likes, etc.) every day. The massive amount of social interactions online has contributed to the proliferation of social advertising. Alongside the interest in online and social advertising, Twitter has introduced several advertising opportunities to aid advertisers to promote their products/services to the “right audiences. This includes providing advertisers with (1) different advertising options of “Promoted Tweets, “Promoted Accounts, and “Promoted Trends, and (2) different user targeting options based on keywords, interests, location, etc. In this paper, first we briefly discuss the Twitter advertising platform, and then we introduce some research problems in this domain.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.144 · 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