MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033573099 · doi:10.1080/02723638.2020.1775030

World cities of ride-hailing

2020· article· en· W3033573099 on OpenAlexafffund
Shauna Brail

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Geography · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSharing Economy and Platforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEconomic geographyValuation (finance)Economies of agglomerationSuperstarEconomyUrban geographyUrban economicsSharing economyGeographyBusinessEconomicsUrban planningEconomic growthPolitical scienceFinanceEngineeringAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on an original database created to assess the early emergence of a disruptive industry, this paper analyzes the urban economic geography of eleven ride-hailing firms, each with a market valuation in excess of $1 billion. The paper investigates the locations of headquarters and secondary offices, exploring patterns and drawing connections to the literatures on world cities, innovation, and agglomeration. The paper concludes that ride-hailing demonstrates familiar patterns of urban concentration and agglomeration, privileging a select number of superstar cities. The analysis highlights new geographic features associated with world cities engaged in the digital platform economy – namely, heightened concentration of headquarters and secondary office locations, combined with the global dispersal of service offerings. Finally, the urban geography of these powerful firms has implications for how we think about the world cities literature, the platform economy, and the larger challenges of innovation and inequality in the global urban economy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations33
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban GeographySame topicSharing Economy and PlatformsFrench-language works237,207