On-demand service platform operations management: a literature review and research agendas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The literature review aims to facilitate a broader understanding of on-demand service platform operations management and proposes potential research directions for scholars. Design/methodology/approach This study searches four databases for relevant literature on on-demand service platform operations management and selects 72 papers for this review. According to the research context, the literature can be divided into research on “a single platform” and research on “multiple platforms”. According to the research methods, the literature can be classified into “Mathematical Models”, “Empirical Studies”, “Multiple Methods” and “Literature Review”. Through comparative analysis, we identify research gaps and propose five future research agendas. Findings This paper proposes five research agendas for future research on on-demand service platform operations management. First, research can be done to combine classic research problems in the field of operations management with platform characteristics. Second, both the dynamic and steady-state issues of on-demand service platforms can be further explored. Third, research employing mathematical models and empirical analysis simultaneously can be more fruitful. Fourth, more research efforts on the various interactions among two or more platforms can be pursued. Last but not least, it is worthwhile to examine new models and paths that have emerged during the latest development of the platform economy. Originality/value Through categorizing the literature into two research contexts as well as classifying it according to four research methods, this article clearly shows the research progresses made so far in on-demand service platform operations management and provides future research directions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".