A Study of the Elements of Corporate Apology Letters on Social Media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rise of social media, enterprises are increasingly confronted with challenges in crisis communication, as platforms like Weibo amplify public scrutiny and accelerate the spread of information. In this context, corporate apology letters have become a crucial tool for managing and mitigating the consequences of a crisis. This paper explores the key elements and effects of apology letters within the Chinese food and beverage industry on Weibo. Utilizing a questionnaire survey for data collection, and SPSS27.0 for statistical analysis, the study employs reliability analysis, correlation analysis, and regression analysis to test the research question. The findings reveal that admission of mistakes, emphasis on corporate culture, and solemn commitment exhibit a strong positive correlation with apology satisfaction, thereby being pivotal elements in an effective apology framework. Conversely, while maintaining public relations, repeated apologies, and expressions of gratitude show moderate positive correlations, they have no linear relationship. The research contributes a comprehensive framework for crafting corporate apology letters, offering valuable insights for enhancing crisis management strategies. The findings have significant implications for theoretical development and practical application in crisis communication.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".