MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239381793 · doi:10.1002/asi.21321

Constructing business profiles based on keyword patterns on Web sites

2010· article· en· W4239381793 on OpenAlexaff
Liwen Vaughan, Juan Tang, Jian Du

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb visibility and informetrics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersChina National Offshore Oil Corporation
KeywordsHyperlinkComputer scienceConstruct (python library)World Wide WebCorrectnessLink analysisWeb pageProduct (mathematics)Sample (material)Web siteThe InternetContent analysisInformation retrievalMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The study examined the possibility of constructing business profiles (specifically, product profiles) based on keyword patterns on various types of Web sites, including a company's own Web site, blog sites, and Web sites that have particular keywords and also hyperlinks pointing to company Web sites. To test the proposed methods, we selected China's four major oil companies and two other companies that have related products. We collected three rounds of data over a 7‐month period from these three Web sources and analyzed the numbers of retrieved pages to construct business profiles. The business profiles constructed were checked against business information collected from other sources such as company annual reports and company newsletters to determine the correctness of the profiles and thus the usefulness of the proposed methods. We found that we can construct fairly accurate profiles by examining the frequency distribution of product keywords on company Web sites. Analyzing the frequency distribution of blogs on various topics was very useful in following major business events and developments during particular time periods. We also conducted qualitative content analysis for a sample of 454 Web pages retrieved from the three sources. Findings from the content analysis confirmed the conclusions from the quantitative analysis.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society for Information Science and TechnologySame topicWeb visibility and informetricsFrench-language works237,207