Conceptualizing the role of Social Marketing in Communication for Development : For the convergence of approaches and methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper presents the theoretical analysis of the role of Social Marketing in Communication for Development and Social Change. The idea defended here is that the different C4D paradigms (Persuasive vs Participatory) are not contradictory but rather complementary. We present a two-dimensional grid that integrates the Social Marketing along with other persuasive and participatory communicative approaches for Development and Social Change, depending on their : "Communication Mode" and "Object of Change". Thus, the paper provides additional support and argumentation in favor of the Convergent Communication for Development. Research paper accepted for presentation at the Social Marketing World Conference Toronto 2013. Extended abstract available from: researchgate.net/publication/235937705_Conceptualizing_the_role_of_Social_Marketing_in_Communication_for_Development_For_the_convergence_of_approaches_and_methods
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 | 0.060 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".