MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165861746 · doi:10.1080/08961530.2021.1907828

How Digital Platforms Materialize Sustainable Collaborative Consumption: A Brazilian and Canadian Bike-Sharing Case Study

2021· article· en· W3165861746 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alexandre Borba da Silveira, Gabriel Levrini, Myriam Ertz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Consumer Marketing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSharing Economy and Platforms
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSharing economySustainable consumptionMateriality (auditing)Consumption (sociology)Bike sharingBusinessShared resourceSustainable developmentEnvironmental economicsSustainabilityPolitical scienceSociologyComputer scienceEngineeringEconomicsComputer securityWorld Wide WebEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pollution, resource depletion, and to a lesser extent, global warming called into question mass consumption. Public policies, media broadcasters, tech giants, and supranational entities (e.g., United Nations) nudged societies into alternative consumption forms that have been deemed more sustainable, such as collaborative consumption (CC). This paper aims at proposing a theoretical–empirical model that explains the materiality of sustainable collaborative practices through bike-sharing. The study further analyzes how connections, mediations, and inductions occur between individuals, platforms, and providers in bike-sharing systems of Porto Alegre in Southern Brazil and Vancouver's bike-sharing in Canada. We tracked these actants using the Actor–Network Theory through 30 interviews with consumers and managers. The findings suggest a dynamic ecosystem of mechanisms that mediate interactions and enact “sustainable collaborative consumption (SCC)” through digital solutions and physical equipment. The results illustrate that SCC is positively influenced by three avenues: (1) sustainable individual actions, (2 ) digital platforms, and (3) sustainable physical equipment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0220.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations35
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International Consumer MarketingSame topicSharing Economy and PlatformsFrench-language works237,207