EXPRESS: Hybrid governance of digital platforms: Exploring complementarities and tensions in the governance of peer relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do platforms integrate governance mechanisms that promote inherently distinct rules and incentives to manage peer relationships?Digital platforms combine market and community-based mechanisms to govern peer-to-peer interactions for value creation.However, these governance mechanisms play unique roles and interact in distinctive ways, thus shaping how platforms can leverage them for the governance of peer relationships.Through an analysis of sharing platforms, we identify under what conditions particular couplings of market and community mechanisms facilitate a stable governance configuration.We uncover how platforms leverage complementarities and avoid tensions among a set of core and elaborating governance mechanisms.The findings show that market and community mechanisms and their interactions constrain platform governance in different ways.When platforms have strong commercial identities and offerings, implement strict assurance instruments, or develop strong social institutions, they confine core mechanisms to a single governance structure and prevent innovative configurations.However, under specific conditions, platforms explore complementarities between market and community mechanisms which lead to either mixed or highly mixed governance configurations.The study uncovers platforms' possibilities and constraints in developing stable governance configurations which hybridize market and community mechanisms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".