MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7110316422 · doi:10.69554/mqaf4904

Unpacking social media engagement: Exploring the role of message strategy and contextual dynamics

2025· article· en· W7110316422 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of cultural marketing strategy. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaUnpackingCustomer engagementTypologyUser engagementSocial media marketingCustomer relationship managementDynamics (music)Product (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To clarify the relationships between marketing strategy messages and customer engagement, this paper proposes and tests a holistic framework, including a typology of message categories (functional versus emotional), and examines how product type (utilitarian versus hedonic) and firm type (business-to-consumer versus business-to-business) affect digital user engagement. The paper analyses 103 brands collected from the Twitter (now X) social media posts. Using the official Twitter application programming interface and specific filtering criteria, the authors obtain tweets related to each brand, including original tweets, retweets, quotes and replies. The results show that advertising message types exert different effects on customer engagement on social media. In particular, the impact of functional messages on customer engagement is more significant for utilitarian products than hedonic products. This paper offers essential managerial guidance and recommended practices for effective social media marketing strategies on platforms such as Twitter. The paper also provides novel, practical insights into enhancing customer engagement in the social media context. This article is also included in The Business & Management Collection which can be accessed at https://hstalks.com/business/.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.655

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of cultural marketing strategy.Same topicDigital Marketing and Social MediaFrench-language works237,207