Motivations of collaborative obtainers and providers in Europe
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
The article analyses the motivations for participating in collaborative digital platforms in Europe. From the duality of roles approach, the motivations of European obtainers and providers are studied, with special emphasis on the role played by occupational status. For that purpose, a pan-European sample of 14,050 citizens from 28 countries is investigated and a quantitative data analysis is applied through a system of structural equations. Regarding overall motivations, the research has identified that economic and usefulness motivations predict the obtaining of goods and services through collaborative platforms. In the case of provision, utility motivations are complemented by other pro-social predictors, such as the possibility of non-monetary exchanges. In addition, the occupational status of the individuals significantly determines their key motivations. Self-employed individuals are essentially motivated by price and novelty in explaining when they consider becoming obtainers. In contrast, managers are more motivated by convenience. In addition, self-employed individuals will be more likely to provide resources on collaborative platforms for non-monetary exchange reasons. Managerial implications of these results are also discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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