The Impact of Food Delivery Riders’ Perception of Fairness on Organizational Identification in the Digital Economy: Based on the Intermediary Perspective of Organizational Trust in the Context of Digital Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rapid rise in the gig economy driven by advancements in digital technology and financial technology, this study focuses on the work experiences and psychological perceptions of food delivery riders in platform-based employment. This study used a sample of food delivery riders from 19 cities in China (such as Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou, etc.) and multiple delivery platforms (such as Meituan, Ele.me) to collect data through a combination of online and offline questionnaires. The impact relationship between perceived fairness, organizational trust, and organizational identity of food delivery riders was examined through factor analysis, structural equation modeling, and mediation effect modeling. The results of the survey and statistical analysis indicate that fairness perception and its dimensions (distributive fairness, procedural fairness, and interactional fairness) significantly influence riders’ organizational identification, with organizational trust serving as a critical mediating factor. The integration of digital technology has substantially enhanced the operational efficiency of platform-based employment by enabling real-time tracking, transparent communication, and data-driven decision-making. Innovations in financial technology, such as digital payment systems and financial management tools, offer riders safer and more convenient compensation methods, thereby contributing to their financial stability and fostering trust in the platform. The establishment of trust alleviates the riders’ concerns regarding compensation stability and bolsters their optimistic attitudes toward accessing platform resources and meeting their needs. This study provides significant insights and recommendations for leveraging digital technology and financial technology to improve the relationship and operational efficiency between riders and platform enterprises.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".