Sharing Economy as Innovative Paradigm Towards Sustainable Development: A Conceptual Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sharing economy has been widely described by scholars as diverse phases towards sustainable development concerning its concept, functions, and goals in recent studies. Historically, the concept of "new capitalism" has been aroused the widespread concerns by scholars when defining the concept of sharing behavior of idle resources back to the year 1961. Moreover, scholars considered further the theoretical perspectives of sharing economy from the year 1978 to 2005. And many scholars started conducting the empirical analysis with the impact of sharing economy on specific industries such as tourism, hotel, mobility and financing sectors by the year 2010. However, there were still only a few scholars studied the field of sustainable development of sharing economy particularly in the mobility sectors and potential implication addressed the implementation of governing policies regarding case of the Chinese government. This article is first to review the previous studies on overall development of sharing economy in current situation, conceptualizing and providing the new sustainable model of sharing economy (particularly in sharing Mobility), led to further address the sharing economy in which regarded such an innovative paradigm towards sustainable development concerning with reviews and empirical studies conducted by previous scholars. Significantly, this study provided significant references to the stakeholders (operators), consumers (users), and administering (Chinese government) the sharing platform such potential issue, bringing the government concerned. Theoretically, it also provides such a new research direction with the sustainable model of sharing economy and potential regulating issues for the future research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
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 it