An exploratory study of the sharing economy in Montreal: The cases of Bixi and Communauto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ces dernières années, l’intérêt envers les pratiques économiques alternatives n’a cessé de croître, particulièrement depuis la crise économique de 2008. Cependant, aucune autre pratique économique alternative n’est aussi importante et prédominante que celle de l’économie de partage. En effet, cette pratique est devenue omniprésente dans les sphères tant culturelles, sociales qu’économiques des régions urbaines à travers le monde et façonne, de diverses manières, le fonctionnement économique de ces dernières. Ce projet de recherche supervisé est une étude exploratoire sur l’économie de partage à Montréal qui se penche sur deux plates-formes de partage de véhicules que sont Bixi et Communauto. Plus précisément, cette recherche examine (1) si les structures d’entreprises différentes de Bixi et Communauto influencent la motivation de ces dernières à participer à l’économie de partage et (2) si les facteurs de motivation recensés par la littérature actuelle sur l’économie de partage constituent réellement ce qui pousse les individus à utiliser Bixi et Communauto.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".