Does value co-creation matter? Assessing consumer responses in the sharing economy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The sharing economy has evolved as a result of the diffusion of information and communication technology and facilitates collaborative consumption and production otherwise known as value co-creation. The present research aims to explore the consumer responses to value co-creation in sharing economy such as satisfaction, brand preference and enduring buyer–platform relationships, amid consumer's CSR concerns. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on the sharing economy and value co-creation literature and rooted in the stimulus-organism-response framework, an online panel data provider was employed to recruit 393 actual sharing economy consumers from the United States. Empirical analyses are performed using structural equation modeling through Amos, version.27. Findings Findings confirm that value co-creation intentions contribute to consumers' satisfaction, brand preference and sustainable social relationships in the sharing economy. As expected, heightened concerns of corporate social responsibility (CSR) led to decreased consumer satisfaction with the sharing economy platform. Originality/value The study contributes to the digital sharing economy literature by emphasizing the role of CSR perceptions for building long-term relationships (buyer–platform relationships) where value co-creation is crucial.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".