MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293087123 · doi:10.1108/jhrm-10-2021-0055

Accessing primary sources for marketing and advertising history research from family history websites

2022· article· en· W4293087123 on OpenAlex
Leighann C. Neilson

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Historical Research in Marketing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia, Gender, and Advertising
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationCensusOriginalityMarketingAdvertisingValue (mathematics)Variety (cybernetics)VotingComparative historical researchBusinessComputer sciencePolitical scienceSociologySocial scienceLawPoliticsQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this study is to respond to the Journal of Historical Research in Marketing special issue call for discussions that can assist advertising and marketing history researchers locate primary sources of interest to their research by describing the resources available through the online family history websites Ancestry.com and FindMyPast.com. Design/methodology/approach Brief histories of Ancestry and FindMyPast are presented, based on publicly available records and secondary sources. This paper explains the types of data researchers can access via Ancestry.com and FindMypast.com, the costs of access and then provides some examples of how these resources have been used in past research by marketing and advertising historians. Findings Family history websites such as Ancestry and FindMyPast can provide researchers with access to a wide variety of data sources, such as census and voting records; immigration records; city directories; birth, marriage and death records; military records; and almanacs and gazetteers, but at a cost. In some cases, paying for digital access to records is more convenient, timely and can cost less than travelling to access these same documents in physical form. Depending on the researcher’s geographical location and the country from which records are sought, this can add up to quite a cost savings. When using these sources, it is wise to determine which database contains more of the records you are searching for; Ancestry tends to have better US and Canadian resources, while FindMyPast covers the UK better. Originality/value Researchers interested in conducting advertising and marketing history research need access to primary data sources. Given restricted travel budgets and, indeed, restricted travel under COVID-19 conditions, gaining access to primary sources in digital form can allow researchers to continue their work. At any time, gaining access to digital records without having to travel can speed up the research process. Researchers new to the field, and those with many years of experience, can benefit from learning more about family history databases as primary data sources.

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)0.114
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1140.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.238
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.180 · 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