Consumer intentions to use collaborative economy platforms: A meta‐analysis
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
Abstract Collaborative economy platforms (CEP) have been investigated from various disciplines, theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches. Subsequently, numerous models emerged to explain the cognitive process underlying intentions to use CEP. Yet, their findings are fragmented and diverse, impeding thereby theory development and management practice. This article addresses this deficiency by a meta‐analysis of psychosocial determinants of collaborative economy platforms (CEP) use intentions. Based on information from a total of 27 independent samples, we find support for the relation between psychosocial determinants and CEP use intentions, as well as willingness to pay a premium price for CEP. The findings show that (1) emotional and flexibility utility exert the strongest influence on use intentions; (2) functional and social utility exert more influence on willingness to pay a premium price; (3) CEP are primarily used for enjoyment and practical purposes; and (4) hedonism does not strongly lead to an increased willingness to pay.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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