MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407208504 · doi:10.24251/hicss.2025.344

The Dual Impact of Video Content on OTT Viewership: Examining the Relationship between Video Marketer-Generated and Video User-Generated Content

2025· article· en· W4407208504 on OpenAlexaff
Dohyeon Jeong

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences/Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLegal Systems and Institutions
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContent (measure theory)Computer scienceMultimediaAudience measurementOnline videoDual (grammatical number)AdvertisingBusinessMathematicsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the digital media landscape, YouTube has become crucial for promoting over-the-top (OTT) media content. This study investigates the effects of video marketer-generated content (VMGC) and video user-generated content (VUGC) on OTT viewership. Using Netflix's Top 10 movie viewership data and related YouTube content, we find that both VMGC and VUGC positively affect viewership. However, their interaction is negative, suggesting substitution. VUGC's positive effect is negatively moderated by video length and engagement, indicating a substitution effect, while VMGC's promotional effect is not. This difference might result from VMGC's careful design to promote without substituting the original content. Additional analysis reveals that spoilers do not drive VUGC's substitution effect. These findings highlight the importance of considering video content characteristics in understanding consumer behavior and demand for OTT content.

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)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences/Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System SciencesSame topicLegal Systems and InstitutionsFrench-language works237,207