MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387313738 · doi:10.15240/tul/009/lef-2023-48

Sharing Economy in the Accommodation Services – Example of Prague During the Years 2017–2022

2023· article· en· W4387313738 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martin Petříček, Štěpán Chalupa

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSharing Economy and Platforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccommodationSharing economyQuarter (Canadian coin)Work (physics)Computer scienceBusinessEconomicsGeographyEngineeringWorld Wide WebPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The submitted contribution focuses on the issue of the shared economy in Prague in the period from 2017 to 2022. The main goal is to estimate the daily values of realized offers within the framework of the shared economy and to make a comparison with the traditional accommodation market. The presented analysis of the sharing economy market works with data that are modified by the authors of the contribution so that the desired comparison can be made. These data are based on the number of written user reviews (using Airdna, Airbnb, Insiderairbnb and other sources). Output from this analysis is then converted using an algorithm into the number of realized offers on a daily basis. For the market working with traditional accommodation, data from STR Global was used, which represents the market for accommodation services in Prague based on daily data. The work with daily data is one of the key uniqueness of this contribution, as common studies work only with average data, usually over a longer period of time (a month or a quarter). However, such data are inappropriate for the market of accommodation services. Based on the estimates and analyses, it appears that during the period of the covid-19 pandemic, shared accommodation has become more used than traditional accommodation. This conclusion can be attributed to the situation where many tourists preferred private accommodation over regular accommodation facilities.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSharing Economy and PlatformsFrench-language works237,207