MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161430098 · doi:10.3389/fspor.2021.658293

An Analysis of Broadcasting Media Using Social Media Engagement in the WNBA

2021· article· en· W3161430098 on OpenAlexaff
Ann Pegoraro, Heather Kennedy, Nola Agha, Nicholas Brown, David J. Berri

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Sports and Active Living · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeagueSocial mediaBroadcasting (networking)AdvertisingMedia consumptionConsumption (sociology)AthletesEmpirical researchPsychologyProduct (mathematics)Public relationsBusinessSociologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While there has been research into what teams, leagues, and athletes post on social media and the impact of post content on social media engagement, there is limited understanding and empirical research on the impact of broadcasting media on social sport consumption. There are an increasing number of new media through which sport leagues can distribute their content to fans. This research examines the impact of different broadcast platforms on game day engagement with WNBA team Twitter accounts. Using data for the 2016-2018 seasons, results indicate athlete/team quality and performance were positively associated with post engagement, underscoring the importance of the core sport product and potentially indicating that the WNBA is developing a star-driven culture similar to the NBA. In addition, broadcasting on League Pass or local TV (for home teams) and Twitter were associated with lower post engagement suggesting we have more to learn about maximizing online engagement.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Sports and Active LivingSame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207