MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411787487 · doi:10.1287/msom.2023.0326

Managing Quality on Two-Sided Platforms in the Presence of Provider Competition

2025· article· en· W4411787487 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueManufacturing & Service Operations Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDigital Platforms and Economics
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetition (biology)BusinessQuality (philosophy)Industrial organizationMarketingService providerOperations managementComputer scienceEconomicsService (business)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problem definition: We study two-sided markets in which competing platforms enforce service standards to control access of providers with heterogeneous service quality and employ pricing strategies to balance supply and demand. We further investigate the effectiveness of launching regulations, aimed to maximize social welfare, in enhancing quality, and we examine multihoming to yield additional insights. Methodology/results: We build a game-theoretic model wherein two platforms enforce service standards and prices, based on which heterogeneous providers and consumers decide whether and which platform to enroll. The transaction revenue from service matches is shared between the platform and the providers according to a pricing scheme, which comprises a service fee and a commission rate. Our results reveal that platforms’ strategies for balancing supply and demand depend on the consumer-to-provider ratio (termed as consumer size) and the value of high-quality service relative to that of low-quality service (termed as service value). Managerial implications: The standards enforced by platforms are not always monotone with respect to consumer size or service value. A large influx of consumers prompts platforms to enforce a high standard when service value is sufficiently high. Platforms can enforce different service standards, albeit only when they compete to balance providers and consumers. Platform competition can be a substitute for regulation in upholding and enhancing quality, especially when the commission rate is high. Regulation is more effective in enhancing quality on a monopolistic platform than on competing platforms. Relative to single homing, multihoming has inconsequential effects on the pattern for the enforcement of service standards, whereas it may lead platforms to raise prices. We alert regulators to consumer size, service value, and pricing scheme in addressing quality concerns in two-sided markets. Fostering competition can be more effective than launching regulations to enhance quality on platforms. Funding: The research of L. Jiang is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant 72171204] and the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong General Research Fund [Grant PolyU15500922]. The research of X. Zhao is supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [Discovery Grant 06690], the Einwechter Faculty Research Grant, and the Lazaridis Institute Seed Fund. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2023.0326 .

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.789

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 communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.232 · 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