#airmaxday2019: Identity and Engagement With Air Max Day 2019 on Twitter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nike’s invented holiday, Air Max Day, is celebrated annually on March 26th by sneaker enthusiasts worldwide. Participation in this event occurs predominantly across social media platforms. This pilot study analyzes how Nike’s Air Max consumers engage with this holiday and with other sneaker fans across Twitter on Air Max Day 2019. This will be discerned by studying the images, captions and replies of the top fifty tweets posted to the #AirMaxDay2019 hashtag on March 26th, 2019 using Schreiber’s (2017) praxeological approach. By studying the themes and patterns present in these elements, this study seeks to better understand the content posted to #AirMaxDay2019 and users’ motivations for posting it. For the purpose of this research paper, a “fandom” is defined as a distinct community of devotees, and this concept will be explored using John Fiske’s 1992 work entitled “The Cultural Economy of Fandom” to discern examples of fan productivity, a term referring to the ways in which fans perform or express a social identity based on their object of fandom.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".