MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205884270 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/3wuvy

Analisis Video Comments to Followers Ratio Instagram Pada 6 Artis Indonesia dengan Followers Instagram Terbanyak

2022· preprint· en· W4205884270 on OpenAlexaff
I Gede Jaya Pratama

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Methods and Impacts
Canadian institutionsOkanagan College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularitySocial mediaIndonesianAdvertisingSociologyArtPsychologyMedia studiesComputer scienceWorld Wide WebSocial psychologyBusinessPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Instagram is one of the social media that was founded by Burn Inc in 2010. Instagram allows its users to share our everyday photos and videos and can create videos, music, filters with user creativity. In Indonesia, the number of Instagram users is more than 300 million active users. make Instagram has many fans because of its features. There are many Instagram enthusiast platforms that make people develop creativity and popularity today, such as 6 Indonesian Artists with the most Instagram Followers, including: Gisella Anastasia, Laudya Cintya Bella, Syahrini, Prilly Latuconsina, Ayu Ting Ting, and Raffi Ahmad and Nagita Slavina . The purpose of this study is to calculate the performance of the Instagram account of 6 artists with the most followers in Indonesia. The method used in this study is quantitative exploratory, from the results of this study it can be shown that 6 Indonesian Artists with the most Followers with Video Comments to Followers Ratio Analysis prove the highest by Prilly Latuconsina with a value of 0.00002181.

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)0.008
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.347 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducational Methods and ImpactsFrench-language works237,207