MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403196930 · doi:10.32782/bses.88-16

USING OF WEB ANALYTICS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT

2024· article· en· W4403196930 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Oleksandr But

Bibliographic record

VenueBlack Sea Economic Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Computational Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalyticsWeb siteWeb analyticsComputer scienceWorld Wide WebData scienceWeb developmentThe InternetWeb intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article presents the concept and subject of web analytics, its main goals and tasks, such as data gathering, data analysis, calculation of KPI, forming of online strategies, describes the main metrics used by specialists when analyzing a website – Bounce Rate, Hit, Visitor/Session, Activity Time, Click, First Visit/Session. After careful consideration the most effective web analytics tool was chosen – Google Analytics. It’s working principles were described and his advantages and disadvantages were analyzed. Working with UTM was described in case with Google Analytics and in common. A website was also selected for analysis using Google Analytics – Google Merch Shop, which is powered by Google and contains different types of Google merchandise. Google Analytics was used to gather different statistics regarding users and visitors activity on the web site. After this, such metrics as Visitors number, visitors’ geographical data and visitor’s conversion number were calculated. Based on the data obtained, weak points of the website were found, due to which the flow of users from some countries was too low, and the percentage of users who made a purchase was significantly lower than the percentage of users who viewed the product. These weak points are limited localization of the site, unclear shipping methods for customers that are outside of USA or Canada, outdated UI/UX design of items page and lack of description with photos on this page. As a result, four recommendations for the further development of the website were formed based on the research data and weak points of the site. It was recommended to add more localizations for people all over the world, increase number of photos, which could make potential customers more interested in making a purchase, and add a detailed description with characteristics of every item, available on the site

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0110.010
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.008

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlack Sea Economic StudiesSame topicAdvanced Computational Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207