MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4237606303 · doi:10.22215/etd/2016-11594

Other Ways to Skin a Cat: The Social Identity Jobs-to-be-Done Theory as it Applies to Independent Magazines Surviving Technological Disruption

2016· dissertation· en· W4237606303 on OpenAlexaff
Emily Huddart Kennedy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentity (music)DisciplineSocial identity theoryThe InternetSociologyTechnological changePublic relationsAdvertisingMedia studiesPolitical scienceBusinessSocial scienceSocial groupAestheticsArtEconomicsComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This cross-disciplinary study of print magazines facing technological disruption asks: Why do we like print magazines?Why are they important to society?What business strategies appear to be working in protecting publications from technological disruption?From a review of technological disruption to magazines since their inception, this study finds that magazines that survived earlier disruptive periods did so through content innovation.However, content is not enough to protect against the most recent technological disruption caused by the Internet and mobile devices.Instead, a combined theory is proposed, called the Social Identity Jobs-to-bedone (SIJ) theory, purporting that we seek print magazines for their role defining our social identities.From an analysis of four case studies of independent magazines at the niche, city, national and international level that are surviving technological disruption, it is argued that the SIJ theory can help publishers determine what areas of their business to protect and expand.I am pleased to have the opportunity to thank the many colleagues, friends and faculty members who have helped me with this research project.I am most indebted to Dr. Christopher Waddell, the supervisor of this thesis, for sharing his research expertise and wisdom in connection with this project.I am also appreciative of his constant willingness to offer helpful answers, advice and quick replies to my many questions.Equally, I

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0190.054
Scholarly communication0.0200.026
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial Media and Politics→French-language works237,207→