Data monetization: insights from a technology-enabled literature review and research agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data is one of the most valuable resources in the world. The new data economy has led to several data use cases and one of them is monetization. Given how recent the concept of data monetization is, this study aims to investigate it, better understand its meaning, implications and issues in the academic literature and provide guidance for practitioners as well as direction for further research. A systematic literature review is conducted on English literature from 2013 to 2022. 54 articles were identified from where a topic and sub-topic categorization and a conceptual framework is developed. The paper makes contributions in three areas: (1) providing a holistic understanding of data monetization models through the extension of a framework from the literature, (2) categorizing of the key topics and trends in data monetization, and (3) using a systematic approach to identify managerial implications and a future research agenda.
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 | 0.031 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".