MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3131184409 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14020087

Crowdsourcing in Sustainable Retail—A Theoretical Framework of Success Criteria

2021· article· en· W3131184409 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter Konhäusner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrowdsourcingAdaptation (eye)BusinessSustainable developmentMarketingKnowledge managementComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current research about crowdsourcing covers industries like food systems or logistics, leaving out the possible impact of crowdsourcing on sustainable retail. The debate about the sustainable impact of different industries is ongoing, especially discussing the adaption to the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations critically. This paper examines the influence of crowdsourcing on the sustainable aspects of retailing by applying a theoretical derivation as well as an empirical observation. After theoretically discussing the linkage between crowdfunding as a crowdsourcing category and sustainable retail utilizing a literature review, a theoretical framework employing the grounded theory approach is constructed. A total of 24 crowdfunding campaigns aiming at the market introduction of new products or services, each worth over 5 million USD funding volume and run on international crowdfunding platforms, have been taken into consideration. The outcome of the analysis is a theoretical framework presenting three different categories, in which successful crowdfunding campaigns impacting sustainable retail excel: sustainable economic behavior, sustainable community management and sustainable market adaptation. The derived model contributes to the theoretical discussion about the impact of crowdfunding and assists practitioners in reflecting about their approach and goal setting prior to and while crowdfunding.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.387
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceFrench-language works237,207