MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183583022 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14080347

Digital Marketing Effects of Clubhouse on Crowdfunding in the Context of COVID-19

2021· article· en· W3183583022 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter Konhäusner, Robert Seidentopf

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaContext (archaeology)NoveltyMarketingPopularityPromotion (chess)Digital marketingAdvertisingBusinessPublic relationsInternet privacyPsychologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the marketing mix, promotion is mentioned as using the communication channels available to present and market the product or service at hand. In recent years, social media has risen as an influential marketing communication channel in digital space. Apart from end-to-end direct messengers and video communication in times of the COVID-19 pandemic, the social media channel Clubhouse offers an audio-only experience. The current research lacks analysis of the potential influence of the hyped social network. Due to the novelty of the channel and the absence of text messages as well as visual stimuli, questions regarding the impact that usage of this social media channel might have on crowdfunding, a means of rising popularity in alternative financing, have arisen. The study builds upon the media richness theory of Daft and Lengel as well as the channel expansion theory of Carlson and Zmud. Besides literature research, explorative expert interview analyses were applied to answer the research question at hand. The main findings include different approaches to foster the opportunities of Clubhouse for marketing crowdfunding campaigns in line with insights about the user group of Clubhouse as well as development options for the platform.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceFrench-language works237,207