This study proposes a mixed methodology to analyze the social conversation around two digital marketing trends: the metaverse and artificial intelligence (AI). The aim of this research is to find out which actors are leading the social conversation around the metaverse and AI on X.com, in order to identify which types of companies or entrepreneurs are setting new trends in digital marketing and to what extent they reproduce gender biases. Methodologically, data mining was used to collect messages through its application programming interface and their subsequent processing. All posts tagged with the hashtags #Metaverse and #AI, along with their Spanish translations, were downloaded. The total sample comprised 123,580 posts from 45,622 different users. Subsequently, the content was analyzed using digital ethnography to establish who is leading the conversation and what are the emerging themes. The results show that the companies leading the conversation are digital projects or recently created start-ups; among the users with the most likes, retweets or replies, there are no large innovative companies. In the case of content creators, those who receive the most likes are characters created with AI that represent highly sexualized and objectified women.
AckerA. (2018, November5). Data craft, the manipulation of social media metadata. Data & Society. https://datasociety.net/library/data-craft/
2.
Adá-LameirasA., & Rodríguez-CastroY. (2020). The presence of female athletes and non-athletes on sports media Twitter. Feminist Media Studies, 21(6), 941–958. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2020.1732439
3.
AgrawalA. (2023). Metaverse. Available at SSRN 4325266
4.
AiroldiM. (2018). Ethnography and the digital fields of social media. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(6), 661–673. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1465622
5.
AkkuzukayaG. (2022). Sentiment analysis on the Metaverse: Twitter data. Sakarya University Journal of Computer and Information Sciences, 5(2), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.35377/saucis…1088304
6.
Alario-GavilánM. (2018). La influencia del imaginario de la pornografía hegemónica en la construcción del deseo sexual masculino prostituyente: Un análisis de la demanda de prostitución / The Influence of Hegemonic Pornography’s Imagery on the Construction of Buyers’ Masculine Sexual Desire: An Analysis of the Demand for Prostitution. Asparkía. Investigació feminista, 33, 61–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.6035/Asparkia.2018.33.4
7.
Alba-CeperoJ., Cabezas-PuertoM., López-BatistaV. F., & Moreno-MonteroÁ. M. (2022, July). Bias analysis on Twitter. International conference on disruptive technologies, tech ethics and artificial intelligence (pp. 131–142). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14859-0_12
8.
Al-MarghilaniA. (2022). Artificial intelligence-enabled cyberbullying-free online social networks in smart cities. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 15(1), 9, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44196-022-00063-y
9.
AlmarzouqiA., AburayyaA., & SalloumS. A. (2022). Prediction of user’s intention to use Metaverse system in medical education: A hybrid SEM-ML learning approach. IEEE Access, 10, 43421–43434.
10.
Astudillo-MendozaP. A., Figueroa-QuirozV. A., & Cifuentes-ZuninoF. (2020). Navegando entre mujeres: La etnografía digital y sus aportes a las investigaciones feministas. Investigaciones Feministas, 11(2), 239–249. https://doi.org/10.5209/infe.65878
11.
Bankless Times. (2023, January31). 61% of Metaverse Users Are Concerned About Sexual Harassment. https://rb.gy/v15qkt
12.
BarbosaB., SauraJ. R., ZekanS. B., & Ribeiro-SorianoD. (2023). Defining content marketing and its influence on online user behavior: A data-driven prescriptive analytics method. Annals of Operations Research. 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-023-05261-1
13.
BCG Global. (2023). 17 Years of the Most Innovative Companies. https://www.bcg.com/publications/most-innovative-companies-historical-rankings
14.
BelkR., HumayunM., & BrouardM. (2022). Money, possessions, and ownership in the Metaverse: NFTs, cryptocurrencies, Web3 and Wild Markets. Journal of Business Research, 153, 198–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.08.031
15.
BhattacharyyaM., RoyA., MidyaS., MitraA., GhoshA., & RoyS. (2023, March). An emoticon-based sentiment aggregation on metaverse related tweets. The international conference on artificial intelligence and computer vision (pp. 358–367). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27762-7_34
16.
BjörkasR., & LarssonM. (2021). Sex dolls in the Swedish media discourse: Intimacy, sexuality, and technology. Sexuality & Culture, 25(4), 1227–1248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-021-09829-6
17.
BlancoN., & PirelaJ. (2022). La complementariedad metodológica: Estrategia de integración de enfoques en la investigación social. Espacios Públicos, 18(45), 1–16.
18.
Blanco-RuizM. (2022). Perspectiva de género en el entorno digital. In JorenteM. José, SegundoR. San, MontoyaAntonio J. Frías, Martínez-ÁvilaD., & LandimL. Alpi (Eds.), Curación digital y género en la Ciencia de la Información. Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. https://doi.org/10.14201/0AQ03245166
19.
BollenJ., MaoH., & PepeA. (2011). Modeling public mood and emotion: Twitter sentiment and socio-economic phenomena. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 5(1), 450–453.
20.
BuchholzF., OppermannL., & PrinzW. (2022). There’s more than one metaverse. I-Com, 21(3), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1515/icom-2022-0034
21.
BuolamwiniJ., & GebruT. (2018). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. Proceedings of the 1st conference on fairness, accountability and transparency (pp. 77–91). https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a.html
22.
CárdenasJ. (2021). Networking for innovation: An analysis of research on social networks, social capital, and innovation. International Review of Sociology, 31(3), 392–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2021.2015978
23.
Castañeda GiraldoJ. A., & Correa MoralesL. (2022). Criptomonedas: Una revolución a la banca tradicional,Universidad Libre, 192, 1–13.
24.
ChenY., HuangS., GanW., HuangG., & WuY. (2023, April). Federated learning for metaverse: A survey. Companion proceedings of the ACM web conference 2023 (pp. 1151–1160). https://doi.org/10.1145/3543873.3587584
25.
CijntjeE., & GisbergenM. S. (2023). Arousing real or real threat? How realism in avatars affects the perception of virtual reality pornography and relationships for heterosexual women. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics (pp. 319–331). Springer International Publishing.
26.
ColianniS. G., RosalesS., & SignorottiM. (2015). Algorithmic trading of cryptocurrency based on Twitter sentiment analysis. CS229 Project, 1(5), 1–4.
27.
CongostoM. L. (2015). Elecciones Europeas 2014: Viralidad de los mensajes en Twitter. Redes. Revista hispana para el análisis de redes sociales, 26(1), 23–52. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/redes.529
28.
CubricM. (2020). Drivers, barriers and social considerations for AI adoption in business and management: A tertiary study. Technology in Society, 62, 101257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101257
29.
DamarM. (2021). Metaverse shape of your life for future: A bibliometric snapshot. Journal of Metaverse, 1(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2112.12068
30.
DattaD., & BhattacharyaM. (2023). Development of cognitive intelligent mechanism for sustainability of Bigdata: A future shape of Metaverse. In HassanienA. E., DarwishA. & TorkyM. (Eds.), The future of metaverse in the virtual era and physical world (pp. 3–25). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29132-6_1
31.
DeleuzeG., & GuattariF. (1987). A thousand plateaus. University of Minnesota Press.
32.
DeLucaA. (2022, November). Virtual reality gaming: Providers’ concerns about child exposures to sexual violence in the Metaverse. APHA 2022 annual meeting and expo. APHA.
33.
DhelimS., KechadiT., ChenL., AungN., NingH., & AtzoriL. (2022). Edge-enabled Metaverse: The convergence of Metaverse and mobile edge computing, arXiv Preprint, arXiv:2205.02764. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.02764
34.
Dixon JrH. B. (2023). The Metaverse. The Judges’ Journal, 62(1), 36–38.
35.
DowlingM. (2022). Is non-fungible token pricing driven by cryptocurrencies?Finance Research Letters, 44, 102097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2021.102097
36.
DuanH., LiJ., FanS., LinZ., WuX., & CaiW. (2021, October). Metaverse for social good: A university campus prototype. Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (pp. 153–161). https://doi.org/10.1145/3474085.3479238
37.
DubeyV., MokashiA., PradhanR., GuptaP., & WalimbeR. (2022). Metaverse and banking industry—2023 the year of Metaverse adoption. Technium: Romanian Journal of Applied Sciences and Technology, 4(10), 62–73. https://doi.org/10.47577/technium.v4i10.7774
38.
DwivediY. K., HughesL., BaabdullahA. M., Ribeiro-NavarreteS., GiannakisM., Al-DebeiM. M., DennehyD., MetriB., BuhalisD., CheungC. M. K., ConboyK., DoyleR., DubeyR., DutotV., FelixR., GoyalD. P., GustafssonA., HinschC., JebabliI., … WambaS. F. (2022). Metaverse beyond the hype: Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 66, 102542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102542
39.
EnholmI. M., PapagiannidisE., MikalefP., & KrogstieJ. (2021). Artificial intelligence and business value: A literature review. Information Systems Frontiers, 24(5), 1709–1734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10186-w
40.
FekiE., BoukadiK., LoukilF., & AbedM. (2022, December). BELONG: Blockchain basEd pLatform fOr donation & social project fuNdinG. In 2022 IEEE/ACS 19th International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA) (pp. 1–8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/AICCSA56895.2022.10017836
41.
Ferrer-SerranoM., Latorre-MartinezM. P., & Lozano-BlascoR. (2020). Universities and communication: Role of Twitter during the beginning of the COVID-19 health crisis. Profesional de la Información, 29(6), 18.
42.
FloridiL. (2022). Metaverse: A matter of experience. Philosophy & Technology, 35(3), 73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00568-6
43.
Forbes. (2021, May12). ¿Qué lenguas son las más utilizadas en Internet?Forbes España. http://forbes.es/listas/5184/que-lenguas-son-las-mas-utilizadas-en-internet/
44.
GadekalluT. R., Huynh-TheT., WangW., YenduriG., RanaweeraP., PhamQ.-V., da CostaD. B., & LiyanageM. (2022). Blockchain for the Metaverse: A review. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2203.09738
45.
GoldenbergD. (2021). Social network analysis: From graph theory to applications with Python. arXiv:2102.10014. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.36809.77925/1
46.
González CámaraP. (2022). Mujeres y deporte a través de los medios de comunicación: Una propuesta didáctica inclusiva. Universidad de Jaén.
47.
Google Trends. (2023). Inteligencia artificial. https://rb.gy/7andnw
48.
GualdaE., BorreroJ. D., & CañadaJ. C. (2015). La ‘Spanish Revolution’ en Twitter (2): Redes de hashtags (#) y actores individuales y colectivos respecto a los desahucios en España. Redes. Revista hispana para el análisis de redes sociales, 26(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/redes.535
49.
HagemannL., & AbramovaO. (2023). Sentiment, we-talk and engagement on social media: Insights from Twitter data mining on the US presidential elections 2020. Internet Research, 33(6), 2058–2085. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-12-2021-0885
50.
HaririW. (2023). Unlocking the potential of ChatGPT: A comprehensive exploration of its applications, advantages, limitations, and future directions in natural language processing. arXiv Preprint, arXiv:2304.02017. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.02017
51.
HassanN., PoudelA., HaleJ., HubacekC., HuqK. T., SantuS. K. K., & AhmedS. I. (2020). Towards automated sexual violence report tracking. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 14, 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v14i1.7296
52.
HayawiK., ShahriarS., SerhaniM. A., & AlothaliE. (2024). Inevitable-metaverse: A novel Twitter dataset for public sentiments on Metaverse. arXiv Preprint, arXiv:2403.01095. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1906763/v1
53.
HeflickN. A., GoldenbergJ. L., CooperD. P., & PuviaE. (2011). From women to objects: Appearance focus, target gender, and perceptions of warmth, morality and competence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 572–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.020
54.
Hernanz FernándezJ. J. (2022). Análisis de sentimientos y engagement en la red social Twitter. Universidad de Valladolid.
55.
IAB. (2022, January5). How MR is transforming entertainment marketing. IAB. https://www.iab.com/blog/how-mr-is-transforming-entertainment-marketing/
56.
KapoorA., GuhathakurtaD., MathurM., YadavR., GuptaM., & KumaraguruP. (2022, April). Tweetboost: Influence of social media on NFT valuation. In Companion proceedings of the web conference 2022 (pp. 621–629). https://doi.org/10.1145/3487553.3524642
57.
KirmaniA. R. (2023). Artificial intelligence-enabled science poetry. ACS Energy Letters, 8(1), 574–576. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.2c02758
58.
KongD.-R., & LinT.-C. (2021). Alternative Investments in the Fintech Era: The Risk and Return of Non-fungible Token (NFT). Available at SSRN 3914085. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3914085
59.
KraaijeveldO., & De SmedtJ. (2020). The predictive power of public Twitter sentiment for forecasting cryptocurrency prices. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 65, 101188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2020.101188
60.
LaeeqK. (2022). Metaverse: Why, how and what. How and what.
61.
LansiauxE., TchagaspanianN., & ForgetJ. (2022). Community impact on a cryptocurrency: Twitter comparison example between dogecoin and litecoin. Frontiers in Blockchain, 5, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbloc.2022.829865
62.
LiY. (2023). Key Technologies of financial digital industry innovation and green development driven by information technology. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 16(1), 78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44196-023-00262-1
63.
LinuoZ. (2022). What’s Metaverse film? Sci-fi, DAO or digital installation?Revista Famecos, 29(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.15448/1980-3729.2022.1.43354
64.
LoureiroS. M. C., GuerreiroJ., & TussyadiahI. (2021). Artificial intelligence in business: State of the art and future research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 129, 911–926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.001
65.
LundB. D., & WangT. (2023). Chatting about ChatGPT: How may AI and GPT impact academia and libraries?Library Hi-Tech News, 40(3), 26–29. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4333415
66.
MadrigalM. (2019, April1). Cómo comprobar de un vistazo imágenes de perfiles relacionados con un perfil, hashtag o término en Twitter. El Blog de Marcelino Madrigal. https://rb.gy/xxxd9s
67.
MarrB. (2022, November6). Estas son las cinco tendencias tecnológicas que se avecinan para 2023. Forbes España. https://rb.gy/n79g05
68.
Martínez-PastorE., Atauri-MezquidaD., Nicolás-OjedaM. Á., & Blanco-RuizM. (2023). Visualización e interpretación de las interacciones en los mensajes de autolesiones no suicidas (ANS) en Twitter. Redes. Revista hispana para el análisis de redes sociales, 34(2), 238–253. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/redes.996
69.
MaseraR. (2023). Web 1.0, 2.0, 3.0; InfoSphere; Metaverse: An overview. Monetary, financial, societal and geopolitical transformation cusps (SSRN Scholarly Paper 4337362). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4337362
70.
Maya-JariegoI., Martínez-AlbaI., & AlievaD. (2021). ‘Plenty of black money’: Netnography of illegal recreational underwater fishing in southern Spain. Marine Policy, 126, 104411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104411
71.
McNairB. (2002). Striptease culture: Sex, media and the democratisation of desire. Routledge.
72.
NadeemA., MarjanovicO., & AbedinB. (2022). Gender bias in AI-based decision-making systems: A systematic literature review. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 26, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v26i0.3835
73.
Nari̇nN. G. (2021). A content analysis of the Metaverse articles. Journal of Metaverse, 1(1), 17–24.
74.
NassC., MoonY., & GreenN. (1997). Are machines gender neutral? Gender-stereotypic responses to computers with voices. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(10), 864–876. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00275.x
75.
NguyenQ., SidorovaA., & TorresR. (2022). Artificial intelligence in business: A literature review and research agenda. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 50, 175–207. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.05007
76.
NielsenM. W., AndersenJ. P., SchiebingerL., & SchneiderJ. W. (2017). One and a half million medical papers reveal a link between author gender and attention to gender and sex analysis. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(11), 791–796. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0235-x
77.
NisarT. M., & PrabhakarG. (2018). Trains and Twitter: Firm generated content, consumer relationship management and message framing. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 113, 318–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.04.026
78.
Nur FitriaT. (2023). Artificial intelligence (AI) technology in OpenAI ChatGPT application: A review of ChatGPT in writing English essay. ELT Forum Journal of English Language Teaching, 12, 44–58. https://doi.org/10.15294/elt.v12i1.64069
79.
ObermeyerZ., PowersB., VogeliC., & MullainathanS. (2019). Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science (New York, NY), 366(6464), 447–453. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax2342
80.
O’BrienB. C., HarrisI. B., BeckmanT. J., ReedD. A., & CookD. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 89(9), 1245–1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388
81.
PiedraJ. (2019). La perspectiva de género en sociología del deporte en España: Presente y futuro. Revista Española de Sociología, 28(3), 489–500. https://doi.org/10.22325/fes/res.2019.13
82.
Ponce CruzP. (2011). Inteligencia Artificial con Aplicaciones a la Ingeniería. Alpha Editorial.
83.
PuC., ZhouJ., SunJ., & ZhangJ. (2023). Football player injury full-cycle management and monitoring system based on blockchain and machine learning algorithm. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 16(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44196-023-00217-6
84.
QianC., MathurN., ZakariaN., AroraR., GuptaV., & AliM. (2022). Understanding public opinions on social media for financial sentiment analysis using AI-based techniques. Information Processing & Management, 59(6), 103098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103098
85.
QinH. X., WangY., & HuiP. (2022). Identity, crimes, and law enforcement in the Metaverse. arXiv Preprint. arXiv:2210.06134. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.06134
86.
RanaS. (2023). AI and GPT for management scholars and practitioners: Guidelines and implications. FIIB Business Review, 12(1), 7–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/23197145231161408
RaoH., LeungC., & MiaoC. (2023). Can ChatGPT assess human personalities? A general evaluation framework. arXiv Preprint. arXiv:2303.01248. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.01248
89.
RattenV. (2024). Artificial intelligence, digital trends and globalization: Future research trends. FIIB Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/23197145231222774
90.
Rendueles CalveteM. (2022). No Metaverse. Investigación y modelados 3D basados en la novela de Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash (Doctoral dissertation, Universitat Politècnica de València).
91.
Rodríguez-SánchezF., Carrillo-de-AlbornozJ., & PlazaL. (2020). Automatic Classification of sexism in social networks: An empirical study on Twitter data. IEEE Access, 8, 219563–219576. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3042604
92.
RouhaniS., & AbedinE. (2020). Crypto-currencies narrated on tweets: A sentiment analysis approach. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 36(1), 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-12-2018-0185
93.
Ruiz-OlabuénagaJ. I. (2012). Metodología de la investigación cualitativa. Universidad de Deusto.
94.
ŞaşmazE., & TekF. B. (2021, September). Tweet sentiment analysis for cryptocurrencies. In 2021 6th international conference on computer science and engineering (UBMK) (pp. 613–618). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/UBMK52708.2021.9558914
95.
SauraJ. R., Ribeiro-SorianoD., & Zegarra SaldañaP. (2022). Exploring the challenges of remote work on Twitter users’ sentiments: From digital technology development to a post-pandemic era. Journal of Business Research, 142, 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.052
96.
Save the Children. (2020). (Des)informacion sexual pornografía y adolescencia. https://rb.gy/2xx8no
ShresthaS., & DasS. (2022). Exploring gender biases in ML and AI academic research through systematic literature review. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2022.976838
99.
SinghS., & RamakrishnanN. (2023, April9). Is ChatGPT biased?A review. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/9xkbu
100.
SoniN., SharmaE., SinghN., & KapoorA. (2020). Artificial intelligence in business: From research and innovation to market deployment. Procedia Computer Science, 167, 2200–2210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.03.272
101.
Statista. (2023). Metaverse market revenue worldwide from 2022 to 2030. https://shorturl.at/zBKW8
102.
StellaM., FerraraE., & De DomenicoM. (2018). Bots increase exposure to negative and inflammatory content in online social systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(49), 12435–12440. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1803470115
103.
SuedG. E. (2020). Repertorio de técnicas digitales para la investigación con contenidos generados en redes sociodigitales. PAAKAT: Revista de Tecnología y Sociedad, 10(19). https://doi.org/10.32870/Pk.a10n19.498
104.
SunS., KimJ. H., JungH. S., KimM., ZhaoX., & KamphuisP. (2023). Exploring hype in Metaverse: Topic modeling analysis of Korean Twitter user data. Systems, 11(3), 164. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11030164
105.
TannenbaumC., EllisR. P., EysselF., ZouJ., & SchiebingerL. (2019). Sex and gender analysis improves science and engineering. Nature, 575(7781), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1657
106.
The Lancet Digital Health, null. (2023). ChatGPT: Friend or foe?The Lancet. Digital Health, 5(3), e102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00023-7
107.
ThelwallM., BuckleyK., & PaltoglouG. (2011). Sentiment in Twitter events. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(2), 406–418. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21462
108.
TuncaS., SezenB., & BalcıoğluY. S. (2022, January). Twitter analysis for metaverse literacy. International New York academic research congress.
109.
UsY., PimonenkoT., LyulyovO., ChenY., & TambovcevaT. (2022). Promoting green brand of university in social media: Text mining and sentiment analysis. Virtual Economics, 5(1), 24–42.
110.
WaltherA., LogozF., & EggenbergerL. (2023). The gendered nature of AI: Men and masculinities through the lens of ChatGPT. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6d4ur
111.
Wamba-TaguimdjeS. L., Fosso WambaS., Kala KamdjougJ. R., & Tchatchouang WankoC. E. (2020b). Influence of artificial intelligence (AI) on firm performance: The business value of AI-based transformation projects. Business Process Management Journal, 26(7), 1893–1924. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-10-2019-0411
WeberM., BeutterM., WekingJ., BöhmM., & KrcmarH. (2022). AI startup business models. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 64(1), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-021-00732-w
114.
XieJ., & WanJ. (2023). Digital twin four-dimension fusion modeling method design and application to the discrete manufacturing line. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 7(2), 89. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc7020089
115.
YangQ., ZhaoY., HuangH., XiongZ., KangJ., & ZhengZ. (2022). Fusing blockchain and AI with Metaverse: A survey. IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society, 3, 122–136. https://doi.org/10.1109/OJCS.2022.3188249
