La consommation collaborative en Europe : Démêler la dualité des rôles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article apporte de nouvelles preuves sur l’économie collaborative en Europe grâce à l’analyse des motivations à participer à une plateforme collaborative en tant qu’acquéreur ou fournisseur. À cet effet, nous analysons un échantillon paneuropéen de 14 050 citoyens provenant de 28 pays. L’étude, qui applique une méthodologie de prévision empirique grâce à un modèle d’équations structurelles, fournit deux principales contributions à la littérature. Premièrement, les motivations économiques et les motivations basées sur l’efficacité prédisent l’acquisition et la fourniture de biens et services sur les plateformes collaboratives en Europe. Deuxièmement, les échanges non financiers prédisent également la fourniture sur les plateformes collaboratives. Nos résultats ont également des incidences sur l’aménagement du territoire. Comprendre les motivations entre les acquéreurs et les fournisseurs peut favoriser les échanges collaboratifs des ressources essentielles, plus particulièrement à petite échelle et à l’échelle locale.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".