MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164878285 · doi:10.1049/ccs2.12022

Prediction of instantaneous likeability of advertisements using deep learning

2021· article· en· W3164878285 on OpenAlexaff
Dipayan Saha, Sejuti Rahman, Mohammad Tariqul Islam, M. Omair Ahmad, M.N.S. Swamy

Bibliographic record

VenueCognitive Computation and Systems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkFrame (networking)Online advertisingArtificial intelligenceDeep learningSet (abstract data type)The InternetMachine learningWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The degree to which advertisements are successful is of prime concern for vendors in highly competitive global markets. Given the astounding growth of multimedia content on the internet, online marketing has become another form of advertising. Researchers consider advertisement likeability a major predictor of effective market penetration. An algorithm is presented to predict how much an advertisement clip will be liked with the aid of an end‐to‐end audiovisual feature extraction process using cognitive computing technology. Specifically, the usefulness of different spatial and time‐domain deep‐learning architectures such as convolutional neural and long short‐term memory networks is investigated to predict the frame‐by‐frame instantaneous and root mean square likeability of advertisement clips. A data set named the ‘BUET Advertisement Likeness Data Set’, containing annotations of frame‐wise likeability scores for various categories of advertisements, is also introduced. Experiments with the developed database show that the proposed algorithm performs better than existing methods in terms of commonly used performance indices at the expense of slightly increased computational complexity.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCognitive Computation and SystemsSame topicMusic and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207