MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037871464 · doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.06.005

Who Shares? Profiling Consumers in the Sharing Economy

2020· article· en· W3037871464 on OpenAlexaff
Sean Sands, Carla Ferraro, Colin Campbell, Jan Kietzmann, Vasiliki Andonopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSharing Economy and Platforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfiling (computer programming)Sharing economyOrder (exchange)Computer scienceConsumption (sociology)Consumer demandBusinessMarketingWorld Wide WebEconomicsMicroeconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sharing platforms are becoming increasingly common, transforming how organisations and customers interact across diverse categories. While there is clear demand for the sharing economy, less is known about heterogeneity of consumer preferences and the varying demand that exists for sharing experiences across different categories of consumption. In order to help brands better understand who shares, this research takes a step forward in the profiling of users of the sharing economy. Drawing on social psychology, this research investigates how social norms can be employed as a form of social influence and nudge consumers to engage in higher levels of shared consumption. We find three clear segments of sharing consumers, representing 86% of all consumers: the mobility-focused sharer, the diverse-platform sharer, and the power-platform sharer. The last segment (accounting for 14%) comprises consumers who do not engage with sharing platforms. Moreover, social norms influenced the future behaviours of only one segment of consumers: the diverse-platform sharer. We discuss how sharing platform providers can better understand, target, and convert consumers to engage in 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

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.231
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

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

Citations59
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian Marketing Journal (AMJ)Same topicSharing Economy and PlatformsFrench-language works237,207