Does value co-creation matter? Assessing consumer responses in the sharing economy
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
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it