MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914963886 · doi:10.1002/asi.24180

Identifying the business model dimensions of data sharing: A value‐based approach

2019· article· en· W2914963886 on OpenAlexaff
Álvaro Arenas, Jie Mein Goh, Brian W. Matthews

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness valueKnowledge managementBusiness modelComputer scienceValue (mathematics)Data sharingValue captureValue networkKnowledge sharingDimension (graph theory)Process (computing)Key (lock)Data scienceValue creationBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to investigate the underlying business model of organizations that have data sharing at the core of their activities. Previous work has stressed that data‐sharing projects need to be sustainable in the long term, and highlighted the need for a deeper understanding of the operation model of existing data‐sharing initiatives. To investigate this important issue, we took a qualitative approach to uncover the dynamics of value creation in data sharing. Using a case study method, we examined two data‐sharing sites across different areas. We conducted semistructured interviews with managers from data centers and other stakeholders, and reviewed documents about the technical and managerial practices to determine the main characteristics of their business models. In addition, we applied the e3‐value modeling methodology to tease out the value flows within each site. Our findings demonstrated the importance of the value network dimension of a business model, as data sharing relies on a set of actors creating and getting value in the process, and the significance of intangible assets. The main contributions of this study include extending current understanding on data‐sharing business models by analyzing key dimensions, and uncovering how value is created and transferred in data sharing.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaOpen science
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptMetaresearchScholarly communicationOpen science
Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.010
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0170.019
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Open scienceMetaresearchScholarly communication

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual · Other design
DomainReproducibility
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association for Information Science and TechnologySame topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceCategoryOpen scienceFrench-language works237,207