MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Generative Pathway of Data Assets: A Data-Based Bricolage Approach

2025· article· en· W4416000824 on OpenAlexaff
Xiangfeng Chen, Ning Su, Chenyu Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDigital Platforms and Economics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBricolageAsset (computer security)Leverage (statistics)Generative grammarProcess (computing)Digital transformationBlueprintConstruct (python library)Value (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beyond connecting platform participants, industrial digital platforms serve as incubators for diverse business portfolios tailored to address industry-specific challenges. Yet, their development is often hindered by the absence or ineffectiveness of institutions, commonly referred to as institutional voids. While prior research has emphasized data as a strategic asset that empowers platform transformation and drives novel value propositions, the mechanisms through how data assets are formed, and their value creation remain ambiguous. Through a longitudinal case study, this research explores how a digital industry platform rooted in the ceramic industry leverages accumulated data resources to develop data assets that fill in institutional voids. Using the bricolage lens, we identify the platform’s adoption of data-based bricolage process—institutional, platform, and anchor bricolage approaches—to construct digital infrastructure, enrich digital resources, and create data asset products. This process also marks the platform’s evolution from a trading intermediary to an institutional intermediary. This study contributes to the understanding of how digital platforms can leverage benign institutional voids to address industry voids. Additionally, it advances the literature on data asset formation by a bricolage lens, which can drive institutional change rather than only serving as a ‘second-best’ solution. These findings offer valuable practical insights for the evolution of nascent digital platforms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.025
Scholarly communication0.0200.024
Open science0.0030.015
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicDigital Platforms and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207