MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413873695 · doi:10.1080/0267257x.2025.2549741

Platform capture: a review of the state of the art of research on platforms and a research agenda

2025· article· en· W4413873695 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marketing Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSharing Economy and Platforms
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsState (computer science)BusinessPolitical scienceData scienceProcess managementKnowledge managementMarketingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Platforms are polysemic market objects that structure – and are structured by – markets. In this article, I provide an overview of research on platforms in the field of marketing and elsewhere. First, I discuss how infrastructures, governance, and institutional logics make up and sustain platforms in a synergetic fashion. Then, I identify five key domains that platforms have captured: human-object relationships, interpersonal relationships, money, labour, and public goods. Building on these categorisations, I provide an analytical grid for scholars to bring clarity to the polysemic nature of platforms and reorient how they ask questions about platforms. I conclude with a discussion on how we should rethink the boundaries of marketing and consumption studies as platforms increasingly engulf everyday life.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.267 · 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