MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230295844 · doi:10.4324/9781315709635-28

Hijacking of a Hashtag

2017· book-chapter· es· W4230295844 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lauren M. Burch, Ann Pegoraro, Evan Frederick

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languagees
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increased utilization of the Internet and Web 2.0 platforms, such as social media sites, has shifted message control and branding initiatives to include the voice of the consumer. Consumers can engage in two-way communication with brands through posts and comments, which can impact the image and management of brands. As Bal, Campbell and Pitt (2012) acknowledged, “[m]oney and advertising are no longer the sole controllers of message dissemination. Stakeholder interaction is now key to brand and image management” (p. 204). While stakeholder engagement and interactivity now play an integral role in modern-day marketing, the digital media environment simultaneously increases the difficulty of branded initiatives staying on message. In January 2014, McDonald’s, an Olympic TOP sponsor of the 2014 Sochi Olympic Games, launched a social media campaign to activate its sponsorship. The overarching goal of this campaign was to encourage communication and connection between fans and Olympic athletes. Employing two main platforms, Twitter and an official webpage associated with the campaign, individuals could send personalized messages and well wishes to their favourite athletes and teams competing in Sochi through the hashtag #CheersToSochi, or by going to the website www.cheerstosochi.com (McDonald’s, 2014). As part of the activation, six US and Canadian athletes agreed to five-figure endorsement deals with McDonald’s to promote the #CheersToSochi campaign on Twitter and Facebook (Mickle, 2014).

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.213 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207