MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211140154 · doi:10.1108/jsocm-06-2021-0145

Examining 50 years of social marketing through a bibliometric and science mapping analysis

2022· article· en· W4211140154 on OpenAlex
Jessica Salgado Sequeiros, Arturo Molina, Mar Gómez, Debra Z. Basil

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Social Marketing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarketing researchSocial marketingOriginalityIdentification (biology)ScholarshipQualitative marketing researchQuantitative marketing researchMarketing scienceScopusMarketingData scienceSociologyMarketing managementQualitative researchBusiness marketingSocial scienceComputer scienceRelationship marketingPolitical scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Through a bibliometric analysis and scientific mapping, this study aims to examine research in the field of social marketing over the past 50 years and to propose a future research agenda. Design/methodology/approach A bibliometric analysis based on keyword co-occurrences is used to analyze 1,492 social marketing articles published from 1971 to 2020. The articles were extracted from the Web of Science and Scopus databases. SciMAT software was used, which provides a strategic diagram of topics, clusters, networks and relationships, allowing for the identification and assessment of relational connections among social marketing topics. Findings The results show that advertising, fear and children were some of the driving themes of social marketing over the past 50 years. In addition, the analysis identifies four promising areas for future research: consumption, intervention, strategy and analytical perspectives. Research limitations/implications This analysis can serve as a reference guide for future research in the field of social marketing. This study focused on quantitative analysis. An in-depth qualitative analysis would be a valuable future extension. Originality/value This research offers a unique systematic analysis of the progression of social marketing scholarship and provides a guide for future research related to social marketing. Importantly, this work suggests crucial issues that have not yet been sufficiently developed.

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.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0110.058
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.274 · 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