Collaborative Consumption or the Rise of the Two-Sided Consumer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While considerable investigative work has focused on that process from a managerial standpoint, little academic research has sought to conceptualize collaborative consumption from a marketing viewpoint. This paper performs a review of empirical, managerial and theoretical research into the phenomenon. The authors draw upon past research to delineate the construct and then discuss its dimensionalities. Next, they develop a conceptual framework of collaborative consumption and then analyse the implications of the latter from the theoretical, practical and societal perspectives. By modelling the concept based on three key thrusts, namely the manner in which consumers partake in collaborative consumption, the transfer of ownership and use, and the channels used by consumers to engage in collaborative practices, and the intervention of the consumer as the key to collaboration, the analysis brings to the fore the multidimensional aspect of collaborative consumption and the centrality of a two-sided instead of a one-sided consumer role.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".