MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386834384 · doi:10.18280/ria.370426

Predicting User Engagement of Facebook Post Images in Leading Universities: A Machine Learning Approach

2023· article· en· W4386834384 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Engin Obucic, Mersid Poturak, Dino Кеčo

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUser engagementComputer scienceSocial mediaHuman–computer interactionData scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study is to utilise machine learning for predicting user engagement with Facebook post images from universities, aiming to provide strategic guidance for their social media content.A comprehensive analysis was performed on a dataset comprising 1,200 images from 24 prominent universities in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia.The open-source machine learning software WEKA 3.8.5 was utilised, with three of its classifiers -J48, Sequential Minimal Optimisation (SMO), and Random Forest (RF) -chosen for their proven efficiency with high-dimensional data.These classifiers were trained using a unique mix of features from the Google Cloud Vision API and attributes derived from relevant literature.Cross-validation techniques were employed to assess the accuracy of the models.A robust performance was exhibited by all models: J48 yielded an accuracy of 90.92%, SMO 94.85%, and RF 97.08%.Even under 66/34 and 90/10 data splits, the high accuracy was sustained.These findings underscore the efficacy of machine learning models in predicting user engagement with Facebook post images for leading universities.Such techniques can be leveraged by universities to optimise their Facebook user engagement strategies, thereby informing the creation of content that aligns with their target audience preferences.This study illuminates promising directions for updating social media strategies in response to evolving communication trends.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicDigital Marketing and Social MediaFrench-language works237,207