Measuring Similarity between Brands using Followers' Post in Social Media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a new measure to estimate the similarity between brands via posts of brands' followers on social network services (SNS). Our method was developed with the intention of exploring the brands that customers are likely to jointly purchase. Nowadays, brands use social media for targeted advertising because influencing users' preferences can greatly affect the trends in sales. We assume that data on SNS allows us to make quantitative comparisons between brands. Our proposed algorithm analyzes the daily photos and hashtags posted by each brand's followers. By clustering them and converting them to histograms, we can calculate the similarity between brands. We evaluated our proposed algorithm with purchase logs, credit card information, and answers to the questionnaires. The experimental results show that the purchase data maintained by a mall or a credit card company can predict the co-purchase very well, but not the customer's willingness to buy products of new brands. On the other hand, our method can predict the users' interest on brands with a correlation value over 0.53, which is pretty high considering that such interest to brands are high subjective and individual dependent.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".