MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prediction of YouTube View Count using Supervised and Ensemble Machine Learning Techniques

2022· article· en· W4319431216 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
P Manikandan, A. Manimuthu, Sharmila Rajam J, Sathya Narayana Sharma K

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 International Conference on Automation, Computing and Renewable Systems (ICACRS) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Analysis and Summarization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceUploadRandom forestLaptopDecision treeSocial mediaKey (lock)Regression analysisLinear regressionVariable (mathematics)VariablesMachine learningArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The social media platform named YouTube is an American based online video sharing and it is headquartered in California. It also provides various services to users such as watching and uploading their own videos through their laptop, mobile and PC’s. The goal of this research work is to analyze the YouTube view count for five different countries namely India, Britain, Russia, Canada and United states. The key goal is to investigate the view count of the video with influencing factors up on YouTube such as likes, dislikes, published date, trending date, Country, Category of the video and other ten variables. This has also indicated the relationship between dependent variable "view count "with all other independent variable by the regression analysis. This data analysis helps the users for better understand of their video, channel performance and reports in YouTube. Through the results of YouTube analysis, it is helpful for the users to identify the key metrics such as video content, duration of the video and liked or disliked. These metrics helps the users to make their video trending. The data is collected from the Kaggle repository, where the data will be updated on the daily basis. Various machine learning regression models such as Multiple Linear Regression (MLR), Random Forest Regressor (RFR), Decision Tree Regressor (DTR), XGBoost Regressor (XGB), Gradient Boost Regressor (GBR) has been used to predict the view count of the video. The results of each of these algorithms are noted and compared in order to determine which method is best suited for the view count prediction. The experimental results inferred that the Random Forest technique performs better than the other machine learning models.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 International Conference on Automation, Computing and Renewable Systems (ICACRS)Same topicVideo Analysis and SummarizationFrench-language works237,207