MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132102842

Phoenix: Facing the Disruptive Challenges of the Bike-Sharing Tide

2020· other· en· W7132102842 on OpenAlexaff
Wen‐Ching Chang, Qiong Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueCEIBS Institutional Repository · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCentre Casa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhoenixGeneral partnershipOrder (exchange)Product (mathematics)Business modelThe Internet
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case mainly describes how Shanghai Phoenix Bicycle Co., Ltd. (abbreviation: Phoenix), with a history of over 100 years, was disrupted and changed after multiple impacts brought on by the Internet and e-commerce, especially the bike-sharing business model and related new technologies. Phoenix evolved over time not only by opening up e-commerce channels, but also by extending its product offering from a single bike to multiple ones through vertical and horizontal diversification. It also formed a strategic partnership with ofo, a bike-sharing company, to participate in the design and manufacture of shared bikes and acquired resources and capabilities that were beneficial to the Phoenix brand's development throughout the process. As the President of Phoenix presiding over its difficulties, Wang Chaoyang had come to realize more and more clearly that the changes brought by bike-sharing to the bike industry would be disruptive. This disruptive change would eventually lead to the redefinition of bike products. And this redefinition would lead to the failure of the traditional business model in the bike industry. As a result, Phoenix had undergone fundamental changes in marketing, products, and manufacturing. However, how should Phoenix respond effectively? What resources and capabilities should Phoenix prepare in order to respond successfully? In July 2019, Wang Chaoyang had been facing these problems for a while.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCEIBS Institutional RepositoryFrench-language works237,207