The Operational Value of Social Media Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the value of using social media information has been established in multiple business contexts, the field of operations and supply chain management have not yet explored the possibilities it offers in improving firms' operational decisions. This study attempts to do that by empirically studying whether using publicly available social media information can improve the accuracy of daily sales forecasts.We collaborated with an online apparel retailer to assemble a dataset that combines (1) detailed internal operational information, including data on sales, advertising, and promotions, as well as (2) publicly available social media information obtained from Facebook. We implement a variety of machine learning methods to forecast daily sales. We find that using social media information results in statistically significant improvements in the out‐of‐sample accuracy of the forecasts, with relative improvements ranging from 12.85% to 23.23% over different forecast horizons. We also demonstrate that nonlinear boosting models with feature selection, such as random forests, perform significantly better than traditional linear models. The best‐performing method (random forest) yields an out‐of‐sample MAPE of 7.21% when not using social media information and 5.73% when using social media information is used. In both cases, this significantly improves the accuracy of the company's internal forecasts (a MAPE of 11.97%). Combining these empirical results, we provide recommendations for forecasting sales in general as well as with social media information.
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 | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".