MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Relations publiques, Big Data et médias sociaux : l’exemple de United Airlines

2018· article· fr· W2909842229 on OpenAlexaff
Luc Dupont

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication et organisation · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse multidisciplinary academic research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article s’intéresse à la crise qui frappa la société aérienne United Airlines (UA) suite à la diffusion d’une vidéo sur les médias sociaux en 2017. À partir de la trace numérique, nous brossons un tableau de la dynamique de cette gestion de crise dans le temps : nombre de messages, analyse des conversations, des interactions, des mots-dièse, des mots clés et des contenus. À cet égard, l’analyse de contenu de la gestion de crise du transporteur aérien UA révèle la réponse inadéquate de l’équipe de relationnistes. En conclusion, nous proposons une réflexion sur les devoirs et obligations de l’organisation à l’heure des médias sociaux, du big data et de l’intelligence artificielle.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.010
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0120.013
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.442
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.050 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunication et organisationSame topicDiverse multidisciplinary academic researchFrench-language works237,207