MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616915234 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v9n6p174

Sharing Economy: For an Economic Taxonomy

2017· article· en· W2616915234 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSharing Economy and Platforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSharing economyRedistribution (election)ExternalityExcludabilityEconomicsGoods and servicesExchange economyPhenomenonConsumption (sociology)Economic efficiencyMicroeconomicsMarket economyEconomyBusinessPublic goodIndustrial organizationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sharing economy is an emerging phenomenon without a consolidated economic approach. We focus on main economic characteristics of sharing economy, as a category of peer-to-peer markets, which include collaborative consumption and redistribution markets. Peer-to-peer markets create a positive externality when exploiting idling capacity, adding further exchange advantages to those usually related to classical two-sided markets. Sharing economy differs from peer-to-peer redistribution markets, where a transfer of full ownership of goods occurs, because goods are used to provide services excludable but non-rivalrous. Problems arising from sharing economy growth are briefly analysed.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.196 · 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