MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566520712 · doi:10.5539/res.v9n1p74

Religious Cognition in Social Marketing Campaigns: Savior or Pariah?

2016· article· en· W2566520712 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Patrick van Esch, James Teufel, Ally Geisler, Skye van Esch

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPariah groupPsychologyCognitionSocial marketingSocial cognitionSocial psychologyNeed for cognitionMarketingPolitical scienceBusinessPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Religious cognition is regarded as a major influencing factor in popular culture, helping shape individual attitudes and decisions regarding food choice, personal associations and social interactions. Social marketing campaigns derive from marketing and social science and are used to influence positive behaviour change through different types of communication methods. A substantial body of literature exists on both religious cognition and social marketing campaigns, yet the literature on where the two phenomena intersect is limited. Religious cognition is empirically proven as a predictor of positive healthy behavior. However, these elements receive minimal attention from social marketing researchers and practitioners. A review of the existing literature is provided with compelling evidence that religious cognition would positively influence behavior change when more congruent with social marketing campaigns. Knowledge gaps are identified and four propositions recommended for future research.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207