MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950846379 · doi:10.5931/djim.v15i0.8987

Using Tweets as a Measure of Sponsor Engagement: Halifax Pride 2018

2019· article· en· W2950846379 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Nicole Slipp

Bibliographic record

VenueDalhousie Journal of Interdisciplinary Management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Studies and Communication
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrideGovernment (linguistics)Public relationsUsabilityMeasure (data warehouse)Public engagementSocial mediaPolitical scienceSociologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following paper considers what researchers can learn from Twitter alone about selected individuals or small groups of users and their sentiments on particular topics. More specifically, it attempts to evaluate the usability of data from Twitter as a measure of sponsor engagement in public events. Given that corporate and government sponsorship of Pride festivals is a pressing ethical concern for LGTBQ communities, this study takes the 2018 Halifax Pride Festival as its case study and performs both quantitative and qualitative analysis of the tweets of sponsors. Analyzing the Twitter data of sponsors of this event reveals some patterns of engagement and identifies the most engaged and informed sponsors.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.363
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 teacher head, 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
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDalhousie Journal of Interdisciplinary ManagementSame topicMedia Studies and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207