MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2624916336 · doi:10.1177/0169796x17710071

The Emergence of the Sharing Economy: Implications for Development

2017· article· en· W2624916336 on OpenAlexaff
Anil Hira, Katherine Reilly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Developing Societies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSharing Economy and Platforms
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSharing economyDigital economyBusinessTransaction costGoods and servicesService economyEconomies of scaleEconomicsService providerCapital (architecture)Service (business)Industrial organizationEconomyMarket economyMarketingFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the spread of internet-based technologies, the sharing economy is emerging as a new and rapidly growing sector of the economy. This sector offers transformative potential for many other sectors of the economy, and possibilities for new economic activity and growth in the developing world. The sharing economy is a misnomer, as while there are possibilities for more cooperative economic approaches, the primary emphasis is on the reduction of transaction costs including the elimination of middlemen in sales between a good/service provider and a customer. In this introductory article to the special edition, we provide an overview of both the positive and negative potential for the contribution of the sharing economy to development. On the one hand, we find that the reduction in transactions costs and the low price of mobiles improves access to goods and services, and reduces the need for economies of scale for marginalized groups who lack access to capital and infrastructure. However, we point to the real obstacles that the poor experience in using internet-based platforms to start businesses or accumulate capital. We discuss the potential for labour substitution of traditional service providers, such as taxi drivers. In juxtaposition to some of its claimants, we find that the sharing economy changes the nature of institutional, regulatory and promotional challenges by the state and social groups, rather than reducing the need for them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0080.014
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations71
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Developing SocietiesSame topicSharing Economy and PlatformsFrench-language works237,207