MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Online Review Helpfulness

2023· book-chapter· en· W4386599529 on OpenAlexaff
Mehmet Akgül, Ali Reza Montazemi

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in information quality and management · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHelpfulnessExtant taxonCommunication sourceService (business)Product (mathematics)Computer scienceInternet privacyBusinessWorld Wide WebMarketingPsychologyTelecommunicationsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online platforms, such as Yelp and TripAdvisor, have facilitated ubiquitous and convenient access to a large number of online reviews about almost any product/service. Hence, it is imperative to understand what makes a review helpful for the consumers to make a decision about the adoption of the focal product/service. Drawing on Berlo's sender-message-channel-receiver model, the authors identify factors affecting online review helpfulness from the extant literature. Such understanding is critical to the review platforms and organizations to mitigate review helpfulness.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in information quality and managementSame topicDigital Marketing and Social MediaFrench-language works237,207