MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312379132 · doi:10.31436/iiumlj.v30is1.697

POLICY, LEGAL AND REGULATION RESEARCH IN THE SHARING ECONOMY: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS AND SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW

2022· article· en· W4312379132 on OpenAlexaff
Nor Fadzlina Nawi, Azyyati Anuar, Nurul Mazrah Manshor, Rozita Abdul Latif

Bibliographic record

VenueIIUM Law Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSharing Economy and Platforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScopusSharing economyPopularityBibliometricsPolitical scienceSystematic reviewBusinessLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sharing economy has changed the way we think about services, assets, and ownership. This phenomenon has shaped a new economic model which emphasises sharing over property ownership. Shared platforms such as Airbnb, Grab, and Uber are increasing in size and popularity exponentially, causing certain political and legal issues associated with such growth. In this regard, this paper aims to investigate the evolution of policy, legal and regulatory research in the sharing economy from the year 1995 to the year 2020 and focuses on new research topics in this field. To achieve this goal, the study utilised extensive bibliometric analysis to identify and analyse 343 articles published in SCOPUS indexed journals from 2004 to 2020. The result shows that research on the sharing economy has increased since 2000. However, the total number of publications in SCOPUS journal relating to policies and regulations still lags behind as compared to the publications in other disciplines. Most of the published research is in the form of concept papers and empirical research. Nevertheless, it is still inadequate. This study summarises the evolution of publications over time and outlines the interests of current research and the potential directions for future research, including addressing policy and organisational research issues in the sharing economy

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.2200.240
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Review

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIIUM Law JournalSame topicSharing Economy and PlatformsCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207