The DOI matches its Crossref record; 193 of the 204 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 5 of the 109 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Evaluative infrastructures: Accounting for platform organization
Open accessOverview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
80 Own interpretation · 31 No full text of the sources · 30 Sources not found · 27 No basis given · 15 Not checked yet · 2 Partly supported · 2 Own method · 1 Supported · 1 Couldn’t confirm · 1 Own result · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Firstly, as Roscoe and Chillas (2014) show in their analysis of the online dating platform eHarmony, the infrastructure of matching might provide only an illusion of choice.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Relationality
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Roscoe and Chillas, 2014 source
In “Building a market for love,” the paper says algorithmic-matching users have relatively few partner choices and rely on the algorithm. “The algorithm knows best” adds that limited shortlists restrict independent browsing, even as matching is presented as active, rational choice. These passages support the hedged description of choice as potentially illusory; page numbers were not supplied. (LLM, conf=0.87)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ebay's evaluative infrastructure originally consisted simply of a public discussion board called the “Feedback Forum” and unique user names assigned to each registered email address.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > The evaluative dimension of infrastructures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All of these details can be found but they do not add up in to one stable object as a singular rating or ranking would do.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Relationality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These were features created initially as a means of easing the problem of directly intervening in and adjudicating disputes between an ever-growing set of users.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > The evaluative dimension of infrastructures
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“on eBay, Uber and Airbnb, for instance, users evaluate each transaction and thus control is de-facto outsourced and decentralized.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Summary and critical appreciation: going beyond accounting's hierarchical consciousness
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The evaluative infrastructure created to solve this problem provided a means of distributing the task of management that had originally and painstakingly been undertaken in-house.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > The evaluative dimension of infrastructures
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Providing knowledge about people that would otherwise be private such as their reputation, history, and status (Wolf & Mahunna, 2005), and establishing the properties of products as the foundation of enforceable contract (Lewis 2011), the evaluative infrastructures provided anonymous and remote individuals who were unlikely to have repeat interactions and were selling items that cannot be touched,”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > The evaluative dimension of infrastructures
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Baron, 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cabral & Hortaçsu, 2004 source
- Not matchedcites Resnick & Zeckhauser, 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This also happens because users have different preferences, for instance, for communication over dispatch time, or for recent transactions rather than historical ones.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Relationality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sellers too engage in a complex set of activities to engineer a match.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Relationality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The addition of quantitative feedback ratings built upon and provided the conditions to enhance this private ordering.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Disclosing values
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 64
- Probably not a substantial claim. 70
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Possibly as a feature intended to continue to offer competition and lower the barriers for entry, the picture which the platform seeks to provide is not the clear and parsimonious one of ranking and ratings (Pollock & D'Adderio, 2012: 258), but rather a complex set of possibilities for making connections which may not immediately be clear.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Relationality
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Pollock & D'Adderio, 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The indexed passage labeled “1 Finished” discusses how a graphical ranking device shapes IT markets, but does not describe the citing document’s platform or its possibilities for making connections. Searches for the claimed contrast with clear rankings and ratings, and for platform connections and barriers to entry, found no passage addressing it. The indexed passages provide no page number. (LLM, conf=0.72)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This scholarship shares the premise that value is not an objective property of a good, nor a subjective preference of a person, but the outcome of practices and processes of valuation.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > The evaluative dimension of infrastructures
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Karpik, 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Vollmer et al, 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The sections “Financial cognition, calculative agency, performativity, and sets of participants” and “Accounting intersections” describe value as collectively assigned through valuation mechanisms and organizational or market processes (page numbers unavailable). They do not explicitly support the further claim that value is neither an objective property of a good nor a person's subjective preference. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Beckert & Aspers, 2011
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This is highlighted by the puzzlement of economists that find evaluative infrastructures to be capable of sustaining markets despite being plagued by factual inaccuracies, misleading claims, and unrepresentative assessments (Tadelis, 2016;Resnick, et al., 2006).”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Disclosing values
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Tadelis, 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction describes the success of online marketplaces as surprising to early skeptics and says feedback and reputation systems are central to those markets. Section 5, “Biases in Online Feedback Systems,” reports that ratings can be biased and unrepresentative, and the discussion of fake reputations describes misleading assessments. But the paper does not specifically say economists are puzzled that markets persist *despite inaccuracies in those assessments*; its stated surprise concerns trust in anonymous online trade. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Partly supportedcites Resnick, et al., 2006 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusion (page unavailable) calls eBay feedback a system that works despite apparent weaknesses: only half of buyers leave feedback, raising concern about selection bias, yet large numbers of items sell. This supports the puzzlement about markets functioning with potentially unrepresentative assessments. The paper does not establish that the feedback system is plagued by factual inaccuracies or misleading claims; its Additional information section instead suggests that serious seller misrepresentation is uncommon. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As already alluded to above, it is important to note that eBay can be read as a more or less traditional hierarchal firm with 12,000 employees; yet, what we are interested in is the fact that its value creation occurs on a platform which mobilises hundreds of millions of users and billions of dollars of transactions without eBay being able to control any of these fundamental activities through its”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > The evaluative dimension of infrastructures
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there is the important caveat that information is centrally collected by the platform owner who is thus in a position to analyse, mine and sell data (Facebook or Google ads); equally, the platform owner is in a position to use the data to drive certain transactions (e.g.Uber surge).”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Summary and critical appreciation: going beyond accounting's hierarchical consciousness
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“This started with a system allowing users to review each other as “positive”, “neutral” or “negative” and to leave a line of feedback or description (such as that at the bottom of Figure 2).Next, these reviews were aggregated into numerical scores for each user (positive reviews added a point, negative reviews subtracted one, and neutral reviews had no effect), and presented in terms of different”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > The evaluative dimension of infrastructures
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Likewise, the written feedback that has no discernible structure but can be cast around any possible subject of concern.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Relationality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An inspection of the ecology of devices that make up the feedback forum and user profile (Figures 2 and 3 above) shows that although one can discern an overall score for each user, in the case shown in figure 3 it is 558, linked with a star colour, the profiles do not define what is 'good' or 'bad'.This happens because the overall score measures the volume of positive transactions rather than”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Relationality
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As platform owners, eBay did not seek to extend accounting as a means of territorialisation from the centre.Rather, they mobilized accounting throughout constant and continued experimentation (Ungerleider, 2014) and mining of information endogenous to the site.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Disclosing values
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ungerleider, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In developing its infrastructure, eBay did not seek to judge participant's characters or fact check the quality of their offerings.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Disclosing values
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In fact, eBay was concerned not to figure out for itself what “reputation” was; a thorough investigation of what lurked behind the numbers (the pursuit of referentiality) would have challenged its status, so essential to its business model, as merely the “modern incarnation of the traditional newspaper classified advertisement and automated and accelerated for the twenty-first century” (Gentry v”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Disclosing values
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gentry v eBay in Cohen, 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“eBay has also sought to manage the development of its 'community' throughout its history.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Disclosing values
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this paper develops the concept of evaluative infrastructure which describes accounting practices that enable platform based organization.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“over the past decades two specific strands of accounting literature have challenged this hierarchical orientation and explored accounting in non-hierarchical settings.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Theoretical context: accounting for platforms
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the need to escape what Hopwood (1996) describes as its “hierarchical consciousness”.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hopwood (1996) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Platform organizations' business models rest on their ability to ensure trust between these buyers and sellers.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Therefore, supply chain and network accounting are lateral in principle, but often, as research shows, in practice such accounting is concerned with the formation of relative hierarchies between a powerful and a less powerful (set of) firms”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Point of departure # 1: Accounting in inter-organizational networks
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this literature remains wedded to notions of hierarchy and the visible hand searching for efficiencies in closed supply chains.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Platforms hold limited fixed assets, hire only few employees, and externalize the value creation process”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Empirical context: the disruptive phenomenon of platform organization
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“accounting as infrastructure may be simultaneously a means of disclosing a new world, of exploring, opening up, generating new opportunities and new subjectivities”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Point of departure # 3: Making up people and things?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What allows them to do so is a specific accounting regimea regime that this paper sets out to describe as evaluative infrastructure.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast with such networks, platforms are more market-based as they invite literally millions of hitherto unknown producers and consumers to transact with each other; the difference is quantitative but also qualitative: platforms do not extend or enlarge a set of relations, but populate a place with the possibilities for relations to form.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Empirical context: the disruptive phenomenon of platform organization
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The topography of space upon which accounting has been shown to be assembled is one with a distinctive centre and periphery, exemplified in the notion of territorialization”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Point of departure # 1: Accounting in inter-organizational networks
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Digital technology and the move towards access rather than ownership (Rifkin, 2001), among other factors, are fuelling the rapid growth of platforms.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Rifkin, 2001
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“control in evaluative infrastructures is radically distributed whilst power remains centralized”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Platforms are distinct from hierarchies, markets and networks and challenge their status as opposing and exclusive forms of organization (Powell, 1990).”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Empirical context: the disruptive phenomenon of platform organization
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Powell, 1990
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These singular devices function like obligatory points of passage; they format and edit the things and people that are brought through them, while they remain static filters.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Point of departure # 4: Accounting as mediating device?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“accounting is seen to reconstitute its objects through its capacity to “translate” (Robson, 1992), “transpose” (Knorr-Cetina & Grimpe, 2008), “reframe” (Miller & Power, 2013), or “interess” (Chua, 1995).”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Point of departure # 3: Making up people and things?
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Accounting, understood this way, is argued to remake its objects through the ability to corner, capture, stabilize, or close: accounting “envelops” its objects (Miller & Power, 2013: 562); it territorializes by fencing in.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Point of departure # 3: Making up people and things?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Miller & Power, 2013: 562 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They are infrastructures because they provide the invisible yet essential mechanisms for the flow of economic activity and exchange on platforms.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“platforms' value-add is to provide an interface for interaction and controlling mechanism for transactions between tens of thousands, sometimes even millions of buyers and sellers who might never meet in person.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the second, more critical, strand of literature remains tied to a centralist notion of power”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Introduction
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because value creation itself is accomplished by hundreds of thousands of people outside hierarchical relationships we need to investigate the specificity of the accounting regime that underpins such decentralized production.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Empirical context: the disruptive phenomenon of platform organization
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this proposition which we will explore in this paper does not suggest heterarchical accounting regimes would replace more traditional hierarchical forms of accounting.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Empirical context: the disruptive phenomenon of platform organization
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In supply chains and networks, production is decentralized but still attributable; the boundary of the firm is extended, but only to include a finite number of other firms.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Point of departure # 1: Accounting in inter-organizational networks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They are evaluative because they deploy a plethora of interacting devices, including rankings, ratings, reviews, and audits to establish orders of worth.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Platforms are a “new type of firm”, which provide “the [digital] infrastructure to intermediate between different groups” (Srnicek, 2016: 12).”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Empirical context: the disruptive phenomenon of platform organization
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Srnicek, 2016: 12
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“evaluative infrastructures do not territorialize from a center, but instead disclose new worlds.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“internally platform organizations may resemble hierarchically organized firms.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Empirical context: the disruptive phenomenon of platform organization
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Platform organizations such as Uber, eBay and Airbnb represent a growing disruptive phenomenon in contemporary capitalism, transforming economic organization, the nature of work, and the distribution of wealth.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In reality, they are assemblages of technical artefacts, institutional arrangements, cultural habits and social conventions (Hughes, 1983;Bijker et al., 1987).”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Infrastructure's modalities and functions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hughes, 1983
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Bijker et al., 1987
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contradistinction, protocol puts emphasis on the intricate, perhaps even paradoxical, relationship between distributed control and centralized power.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Infrastructure's modalities and functions
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, we face intricate power relations in platforms' accounting regime: whilst control of goods and services is radically decentralized, power is concentrated in the hands of the platform owner.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Summary and critical appreciation: going beyond accounting's hierarchical consciousness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accounting, in other words, operates by creating relations between actions, behaviours and preferences, so as to engineer possibilities of a match.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Relationality
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Central to eBay's story has been its early development of evaluative infrastructures (Baron, 2001), which Stone et al. (2014: 357) describe as “the world's largest and most widely imitated MCS [management control system]”.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > The evaluative dimension of infrastructures
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Baron, 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Stone et al., 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“On the Feedback Forum, Baron (2001: 246) notes, “members established informal standards, provided feedback on other members' performance, and policed the site”.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > The evaluative dimension of infrastructures
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Baron, 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“But not only physical infrastructures exercise power; categorical infrastructures (Schneiberg & Berk, 2010) shape perceptions, guide attention and pattern “structures of intentionality” (Goodwin quoted in Bowker & Star, 1999: 287).”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Infrastructure's modalities and functions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schneiberg & Berk, 2010 source
- Not matchedcites Goodwin quoted in Bowker & Star, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, while well aware of the potential for some bias and also the need for further in depth studies, we have gathered data for this section from a wide variety of primary and secondary sources such as investigatory journalism and academic research.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > The evaluative dimension of infrastructures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We capture this quality through arguing that evaluative infrastructures disclose new worlds: they do not simply measure (capture, calculate) what is there, or what a centre imagines there to be, nor do they territorialize (fence in, colonize) life-worlds.”
- Also stated in: § Summary and critical appreciation: going beyond accounting's hierarchical consciousness · plain
“Translated into the context of platform organization: evaluative infrastructures do not calculate what is there but disclose new worlds through creating objects that are not so much the outcomes of programmatic aspirations, but of a surplus of data and traces, which produce new possibilities of discovery and invention.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Summary and critical appreciation: going beyond accounting's hierarchical consciousness
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Summary and critical appreciation: going beyond accounting's hierarchical consciousness · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We argue that in evaluative infrastructures power is centralized, while control is radically decentralized.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Summary and critical appreciation: going beyond accounting's hierarchical consciousness
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This highlights the relational aspect of infrastructures: infrastructures are not singular mediating devices that strive for referentiatlity between objects and representations; rather, evaluative infrastructures generate relations (not references) between things, people and ideas.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Summary and critical appreciation: going beyond accounting's hierarchical consciousness
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This alludes to the temporal dimension of infrastructure: it is a dynamic assemblage that is evolving and changing.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Infrastructure's modalities and functions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Rather, infrastructures are a form of control that determines the potentiality of any place within the network, defining what is possible and actual (to paraphrase Hopwood, 1987).”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Infrastructure's modalities and functions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hopwood, 1987 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This section has also been sent to and informally discussed with a member of eBay Labs with the aim to check accuracy and explore its propositions.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > The evaluative dimension of infrastructures
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The relational character of feedback makes it potentially surprising and generative of new issues and possibilities.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Relationality
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A private ordering emerged; it was said (perhaps overstated) that “trust on the site was so high and the feeling of community so strong that it was common for sellers to ship items even before they had received bidders' payments” (Baron, 2001: 26).”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > The evaluative dimension of infrastructures
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Baron, 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Hence, in infrastructure, the technical and the social are inextricably intertwined (Larkin, 2013).”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Infrastructure's modalities and functions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Larkin, 2013 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Disciplinary power as defined by Foucault is about enclosure (territorialisation) of things and people, whilst control is about managing flows (Deleuze, 1992).”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Infrastructure's modalities and functions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Deleuze, 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Our reading of extant research echoes Hopwood's diagnosis that even “the so called new management accountings still tend to maintain this hierarchical orientation””
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Summary and critical appreciation: going beyond accounting's hierarchical consciousness
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hopwood
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Whilst much extant research has focused on moments of valuation (Antal et al., 2015) or singular valuation devices (Muniesa et al., 2007) the concept of evaluative infrastructures puts emphasis on the distributed, systematic nature of valuation processes that underpin platform organization.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > The evaluative dimension of infrastructures
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Antal et al., 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Muniesa et al., 2007 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“As Star and Ruhleder (1996: 114) argued, an “infrastructure occurs when the tension between local and global is resolved.””
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Infrastructure's modalities and functions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Star and Ruhleder, 1996 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Evaluative infrastructures include rankings, ratings, reviews, tests, audits, assessments and other evaluation mechanisms (Antal et al., 2015;Kornberger et al., 2015).”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > The evaluative dimension of infrastructures
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Antal et al., 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Kornberger et al., 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“First, because of this radically relational character infrastructures need to be understood as ecologies (Star & Ruhleder, 1996, referencing Bateson, 1972;Star, 1999;Bowker et al., 2010;Monteiro et al., 2013).”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Infrastructure's modalities and functions
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Hence, departing from the focus on singular mediating instruments, we propose thinking of an “ecology of devices” that Star and Ruhleder (1996;Star, 1999;Monteiro et al., 2013) describe as “infrastructure”.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Point of departure # 4: Accounting as mediating device?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Star and Ruhleder (1996;Star, 1999;Monteiro et al., 2013)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whilst there may be no single actor in the centre, there is a centre that controls activities and exercises power.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Summary and critical appreciation: going beyond accounting's hierarchical consciousness
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In the case of eBay, reputation is not “there” to facilitate exchange; rather, reputation is the result of evaluative infrastructure's disclosing, constituting an asset which Fourcade and Healy (2013;2016) described as “ubercapital”-the form of capital arising from the “digital record” which evaluative infrastructure unfurls.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Relationality
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“eBay users become the auditors of platform activities, and in-house fraud investigation and protection becomes only a reluctantly-used last resort (Stone, Nikitkov, & Miller, 2014: 368).”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Centralized power, decentralized control
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Stone, Nikitkov, & Miller, 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“By virtue of its ownership of the platform (as well as the possibilities that the data generates), eBay is able to draw boundaries on what can and cannot be traded, outlawing, for instance, the sale of firearms, drugs, body parts, and alcohol and cigarettes, as well as determining how trade can take place, by, for instance, establishing PayPal as the site's de-facto payment mechanism (Cohen, 2002;”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Centralized power, decentralized control
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cohen, 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Long, 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Consistent with the accounting literature, sellers engage in gaming activities (Argyris, 1990) such as “shrilling” and “feedback bombing”, as well as getting caught up in self-fulfilling prophecies, whereby initial negative feedback increases the chances of receiving subsequent negative feedback (Cabral & Hortacsu, 2004: Saeedi et al, 2013).”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Relationality
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Crucially, eBay's proprietary interfaces, from discussion boards to the feedback forum and even its fraud detection system, depend upon its users to work.They require that users evaluate, assess, control, and follow up what their fellow users do, creating much of the information that eBay's evaluative infrastructure collects, analysis and uses to organize its platform.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Centralized power, decentralized control
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such adjudication would have limited eBay's ability to scale, because of the resources required and because doing so would make the company liable for the claims made in its site.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Disclosing values
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The hidden cursor directs attention to the point that platforms rely upon two types of accounting.One type of accounting is conventionally hierarchical: as a firm, eBay accounts for its profits, assets and costs and controls hierarchically its in-house employees.Another type is the accounting that makes up the platform's ability to connect and relate millions of suppliers and buyers.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Disclosing values
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Attention to the elaboration of evaluative infrastructure highlights that problematic way in which organizations constitute, control and commodify capital from digital traces.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Relationality
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“This relationship between power and control can be described analytically as protocol (Deleuze, 1992;Lessig, 1999;Galloway, 2004).”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Centralized power, decentralized control
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Deleuze, 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Lessig, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Galloway, 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thirdly, evaluative infrastructures are problematic because they constitute not only economic value but also life chances.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Relationality
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a platform, eBay's accounting mechanisms make it a producer of classifications looking for traces and combinations which can be pulled together to disclose the world in a new way.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Disclosing values
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unfolding in this way, evaluative infrastructures operate without a stable referent.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Disclosing values
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even though eBay asserts no responsibility for the claims made on its platform, it maintains strict control over the infrastructure and the data which it generates.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Centralized power, decentralized control
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“This is the reason why reputations are bought and sold on eBay and why sellers have sued buyers for leaving negative feedback (Med Express Inc. v Amy Nicholls and eBay Inc.; Baron, 2001).”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Relationality
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Med Express Inc. v Amy Nicholls and eBay Inc.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Baron, 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are even online platforms (such as traity.com)whose sole purpose is to manage users' various forms of “ubercapital” which they acquire on other platforms, in social media, in computer games, and elsewhere.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Relationality
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hierarchies and markets, of course live on, even within platform organizations; managers, not history, confront managerial dilemmas and choose how and on what terms to respond to them.As such, management accounting and its hierarchical consciousness have a significant-and in our rendering a perhaps sometimes deemphasized-place in theorizing the prevalent patterns of organizational change.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Conclusion: towards a research agenda of accounting for platform organization
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The case of eBay highlights the infrastructural character of a heterachical mode of accounting.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Relationality
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But, they do not necessarily have to be controlled as individuals; rather, with each new user, eBay recruits an additional auditor (in disguise) of platform activity.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Centralized power, decentralized control
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What were once anonymous and remote buyers and sellers wary of online commerce, had become multi-dimensional representations (usernames, histories, feedback ratings, points, stars, and other descriptors) transacting at a significant scale,”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Conclusion: towards a research agenda of accounting for platform organization
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instead, it is about creating the condition for the possibility of hitherto unknown things to surface.In this sense, disclosing is about exploration, not exposure.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Disclosing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This mutual dependency was highlighted by a series of insurgencies led by disgruntled users in response to changes to the Feedback Forum throughout its development.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Centralized power, decentralized control
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the use of many exclamation marks for instance was read as indicative of assertiveness and hence aggressive driving behaviour.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Conclusion: towards a research agenda of accounting for platform organization
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/02/admiral-to-price-car-insurance-based-on-facebook-posts
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Past buying behaviour leads to personalized recommendations for future purchases: evaluative infrastructure creates patterns, relentlessly connecting, comparing, and contextualizing.This leads to an endogenous ordering as infrastructure-immanent activity as opposed to external categorizations.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Relationality
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Today's platform based firms, such as eBay, Uber and Airbnb but also its smaller siblings in the emerging fintech industry or blockchain banking are big data firms: their competence is data creation, collection, experimentation, and analysis (McAfee & Brynjolfsson, 2012).”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Conclusion: towards a research agenda of accounting for platform organization
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites McAfee & Brynjolfsson, 2012
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, eBay, like other platform organizations, is notoriously secretive about its evaluative infrastructure; it is as if the evaluation seemed to be premised on the fact that its production has to remain secret in order to stay truthful.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Protocol
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These topographies neither represent calculative spaces (bookkeeping), nor concrete spaces (such as the factory floor) nor abstract spaces (such as the brand); rather, they are emerging spaces of values (trust in eBay; skills in LinkedIn; reputation in Airbnb) that are disclosed through evaluative infrastructures.As over time different infrastructures are layered on top of each other, they will”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Conclusion: towards a research agenda of accounting for platform organization
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dourish & Bell, 2007 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firstly, power and control do not flow in only one direction (as in, for instance, the development of rules within an outsourced network) but develop at the same time, and in different directions.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Centralized power, decentralized control
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Evaluative infrastructures are assemblages of heterogeneous elements that create relations between elements across space and time.As such, we showed that they are not singular mediating devices that strive for referentiality between objects and representations.Rather, they are ecologies of interacting devices that generate relations (not references) between people's actions, behaviours, experi”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Relationality
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, evaluative infrastructures are contextualizing machines: they constantly link events, actions, behaviours, decisions (clicks), assessments and other traces left unintentionally and unconsciously (such as speed of typing, time of access, or browser used to access site)all of which are used to build a web of context around objects and subjects.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Relationality
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“After a public outcry on privacy grounds Admiral had to shelf its ideafor now.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Conclusion: towards a research agenda of accounting for platform organization
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/02/admiral-to-price-car-insurance-based-on-facebook-posts
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In so doing, evaluative infrastructures disclose values that represent the resource base of economic activity.As shown, eBay's evaluative infrastructure discloses trust as key currency without which it could not operate.Through its evaluative infrastructure, eBay creates the non-economic values it relies on for its economic success.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Disclosing
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Hence, it is unsatisfactory to say that evaluative infrastructures reframe or constitute preexisting types of trust because it is formed and disclosed via evaluative infrastructures that , generate opportunities to connect just like a new highway built into wilderness discloses the opportunity to travel, visit and settle.It is equally unsatisfactory to argue that trust is socially constructed: at”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Disclosing
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lury & Marres, 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In eBay's evaluative infrastructure control is decentralized, whereas power remains centralized.eBay exercises power through its infrastructural design, maintaining standards, imposing what counts and how to count, excluding users, and introducing rules.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Protocol
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whilst there can be no doubt of the centralized power of eBay as a firm, control itself is decentralized and distributed alongside the production processes of eBay as a platform.As a firm, eBay might reproduce accounting's hierarchical consciousness; however, as a platform, eBay's evaluative infrastructure illustrates a heterarchical mode of accounting.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Protocol
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Big data for instance is an important precondition to and outcome of the development of evaluative infrastructures.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Conclusion: towards a research agenda of accounting for platform organization
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Through connecting events, actions, behaviours, decisions (clicks) and assessments by third parties on eBay, new qualities such as reputation or trust come to the fore.These qualities are not a result of referencing or trailing, but of relations that the infrastructure engenders without altering the connected objects themselves.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Relationality
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Evaluative infrastructures embody expectations about the future.This can lead to self-fulfilling prophecies and other forms of reversed causality in which expectations of future behaviour shape present behaviour.A second important temporal dynamic are network effects that might turn infrastructures that have grown to critical mass into de-facto standards.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Conclusion: towards a research agenda of accounting for platform organization
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Evaluative infrastructures produce novel apparatuses of power: they are not centres of calculation that allow action at distance, projecting power to the periphery.Rather, evaluative infrastructures produce a more differentiated regime: in evaluative infrastructures control is radically distributed, whilst power remains centralized.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Protocol
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the one hand, the platform owners gain ever more power to make use of platform data and to design protocol rules.On the other hand, the platform owners gain this power through the distribution of control.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Centralized power, decentralized control
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather, eBay's evaluative infrastructure disclosed a new form of relationality in which trust between anonymous actors could come into existence: through feedback loops, ratings, comments, and other evaluation mechanisms trust came into existence as a quantification.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Disclosing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The concept of evaluative infrastructures serves as reminder for the relentless background work that has to be accomplished in order to turn 0/1s into voices and values.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Conclusion: towards a research agenda of accounting for platform organization
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even for the benevolent observer it must have become obvious that the difference between purporting and provoking has been conflated in the disclosing powers of platform accounting.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Conclusion: towards a research agenda of accounting for platform organization
boostedn = 700,000- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“The experiment aimed to determine whether the company could alter the emotional state of its users.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Conclusion: towards a research agenda of accounting for platform organization
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Guardian
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectn = 700,000- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Users may gain control but, because the emergence evaluative infrastructure as protocol creates ever bigger network effects (Haucap and Heimeshoff, 2014), users lose power to resist or even exit the platforms as switching costs increase with every new user.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Centralized power, decentralized control
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Haucap and Heimeshoff, 2014 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“indeed, evaluative infrastructures are at play at Uber just as well as at its cooperative twin, the mobility platform LaZooz.As such evaluative infrastructures span ideological boundaries, suggesting that rhetorical disagreements are in reality based on a shared intellectual and material investments.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Conclusion: towards a research agenda of accounting for platform organization
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
eBay is a prototypical platform that is based, at least in large part, on evaluative infrastructure.
“we provide the extended example of eBay as prototypical platform that is based, at least in large part, on such a novel accounting regime.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Platforms (such as eBay, Uber, Airbnb) are heterarchically organized systems.
“We are now in a position to define evaluative infrastructure: it consists of an ecology of devices that disclose values of actions and behaviours in heterarchically organized systems (such as platforms) through the maintenance of protocol.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Platforms (eBay, Airbnb, Uber) are a new disruptive phenomenon that requires new conceptual vocabulary.
“The concept of evaluative infrastructure represents such an attempt at conceptual re-tooling with the aim to grapple with the new disruptive phenomenon of platforms and in so doing think accounting as heterarchical practice.”
The paper relies on this without support.
eBay's evaluative infrastructure is representative of platform organization more generally.
“eBay provides an advantageous setting to consider platform organization, the development of novel forms of accounting alongside its classical counterparts, and the opportunities and challenges of moving our analytical thinking beyond a hierarchical consciousness.”
The paper relies on this without support.
eBay is a representative or illustrative case from which general claims about platform organizations can be drawn.
“As the illustrative case of eBay highlights, evaluative infrastructures focus attention on the questions of what precisely is new in the new economy of platform organization.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Relationality
“They are part and product of an ecology of devices that connect, and through this work of connecting change the objects they relate to each other.”
§ Evaluative Infrastructures Accounting for Platform Organization > Relationality
“These qualities are not a result of referencing or trailing, but of relations that the infrastructure engenders without altering the connected objects themselves.”
Citations
Cites
Granovetter, M. S. (1973) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/225469 · Cited by 40,491
Coase, R. H. (1937) · Economica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x · Cited by 23,972
The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism
Akerlof, G. A. (1970) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1879431 · Cited by 23,016
The Theory of the Growth of the Firm
Penrose, E. T. (1995) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1016/s0024-6301(96)90295-2 · Cited by 13,942
Hutchins, E. (1995) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001 · Cited by 10,801 · cited 2×
“Hence, evaluative infrastructures may be analysed as forms of distributed accounting akin to distributed cognition (Giere, 2002; Hutchins, 1995).”
BackgroundInterorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393988 · Cited by 8,499
The Use of Knowledge in Society
von Hayek, F. A. (1996) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-9749-1.50005-3 · Cited by 6,493
Bateson, G. (2000) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226924601.001.0001 · Cited by 5,573
Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences
(2000) · The Journal of Academic Librarianship · doi:10.1016/s0099-1333(00)00155-5 · Cited by 5,212
Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans
Ouchi, W. G. (1980) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392231 · Cited by 4,735
The Ethnography of Infrastructure
STAR, S. L. (1999) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/00027649921955326 · Cited by 4,486
The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure
Larkin, B. (2013) · Annual Review of Anthropology · doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-092412-155522 · Cited by 4,095
The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978-1979
Foucault, M., Senellart, M., Ewald, F., Fontana, A., Davidson, A. I., & Burchell, G. (2008) · Cited by 4,073
Micromotives and Macrobehavior
Eaton, B. C., & Schelling, T. C. (1981) · Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique · doi:10.2307/134812 · Cited by 3,801
Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks
Kramer, A. D. I., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1320040111 · Cited by 3,687
The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification
Quam, L. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7133.787a · Cited by 3,611
The Audit Society: Rituals of VerificationPreprint
Power, M. (1999) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 3,597
Big Data : The Management Revolution
マカフィー, ア., ブリニョルフソン, エ., & 有賀, 裕. (2013) · Harvard business review · Cited by 3,545
Neither market nor hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization
Milošević, D. (2014) · Cited by 3,446
(1999) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,259
Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces
Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.7.1.111 · Cited by 3,238
Gummett, P. J. (1988) · Physics Bulletin · doi:10.1088/0031-9112/39/8/019 · Cited by 2,997
Miller, P., & Rose, N. (1990) · Economy and Society · doi:10.1080/03085149000000001 · Cited by 2,877 · cited 22×
“Much accounting literature has evolved along this line of argumentation: a powerful and aspiring centre has been shown to remake people and things in its name (see Miller & Power, 2013, p. 561).”
BackgroundInfluentialTrust in numbers: the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life
(1995) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.33-1499 · Cited by 2,621
Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds
Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/517897 · Cited by 2,584
Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design
Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. T. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171107 · Cited by 2,538
Gillespie, T. (2010) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444809342738 · Cited by 2,522 · cited 1×
“Secondly, instead of opening up possibilities for knowledge creation, evaluative infrastructure can accentuate discrimination based on pre-existing distinctions (Gillespie, 2010: Edelman & Luca, 2014, pp. 14e054).”
BackgroundOrganizing for Innovation in the Digitized World
Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0771 · Cited by 2,469
Some Simple Economics of Open Source
Lerner, J., & Tirole, J. (2002) · The Journal of Industrial Economics · doi:10.1111/1467-6451.00174 · Cited by 2,355
(2012) · PubMed · Cited by 2,326
Winner, L. (2017) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315259697-21 · Cited by 2,325
People as infrastructure: Intersecting fragments in johannesburg
Simone, A. (2004) · Public Culture · doi:10.1215/08992363-16-3-407 · Cited by 2,234
Micromotives and Macrobehavior.
Connolly, T., & Schelling, T. C. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2989930 · Cited by 2,061
Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880-1930
King, W. J., & Hughes, T. P. (1984) · The American Historical Review · doi:10.2307/1862567 · Cited by 1,882
Trust among strangers in internet transactions: Empirical analysis of eBay' s reputation system
Resnick, P., & Zeckhauser, R. (2004) · Advances in applied microeconomics · doi:10.1016/s0278-0984(02)11030-3 · Cited by 1,831
Coase's penguin, or, linux and “the nature of the firm”
Benkler, Y. (2002) · The Yale Law Journal · doi:10.2307/1562247 · Cited by 1,572
Accounting and the construction of the governable person
Miller, P., & O'Leary, T. (1987) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/0361-3682(87)90039-0 · Cited by 1,505
Toward a Comparative Sociology of Valuation and Evaluation
Lamont, M. (2012) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120022 · Cited by 1,492
Platform Leadership How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2002) · Cited by 1,486
What's mine is yours: the rise of collaborative consumption
(2011) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.48-3364 · Cited by 1,440
The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism?
Martin, C. J. (2016) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.027 · Cited by 1,327
The archeology of accounting systems
Hopwood, A. G. (1987) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/0361-3682(87)90038-9 · Cited by 1,265
(2010) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,239
The value of reputation on eBay: A controlled experiment
Resnick, P., Zeckhauser, R., Swanson, J., & Lockwood, K. (2006) · Experimental Economics · doi:10.1007/s10683-006-4309-2 · Cited by 1,118
On trying to study accounting in the contexts in which it operates
Hopwood, A. G. (1983) · Accounting Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/0361-3682(83)90035-1 · Cited by 1,103
A vast machine: computer models, climate data, and the politics of global warming
Chen, R. S. (2010) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.48-0879 · Cited by 1,087
"The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete"
Willighagen, E. (2008) · doi:10.59350/j4d10-0jt05 · Cited by 1,057
Dekker, H. C. (2003) · Accounting Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/s0361-3682(02)00056-9 · Cited by 1,038
Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life
Matthews, J. R. (1996) · Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6696(199607)32:3 · Cited by 1,004
Sorting things out: classification and its consequences
(2000) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.37-5139 · Cited by 1,001
Postscript on the Societies of Control*
Deleuze, G. (2017) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315242002-3 · Cited by 998
Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition.
Andrews, S. B., & Burt, R. S. (1995) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393644 · Cited by 987
Protocol: How Control Exists after Decentralization
Galloway, A. R. (2004) · University of Michigan Library Repository · Cited by 944
The Architecture of Platforms: A Unified View
Baldwin, C. Y., & Woodard, C. J. (2009) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781849803311.00008 · Cited by 941
The Architecture of Platforms: A Unified ViewPreprint
Baldwin, C. Y., & Woodard, C. J. (2008) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1265155 · Cited by 915
Douglas, M., & Isherwood, B. (1982) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 891
West, J. (2003) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(03)00052-0 · Cited by 854
A vast machine: Computer models, climate data, and the politics of global warming
(2015) · Canadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes · doi:10.1111/cag.12157 · Cited by 832
Proceedings of the 16th International Conference Information Systems 2023
(2023) · doi:10.33965/is2023 · Cited by 828
Accounting in its social context: Towards a history of value added in the United Kingdom
Burchell, S., Clubb, C., & Hopwood, A. G. (1985) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/0361-3682(85)90002-9 · Cited by 808
An introduction to market devices
Muniesa, F., Millo, Y., & Callon, M. (2007) · The Sociological Review · doi:10.1111/j.1467-954x.2007.00727.x · Cited by 795
Accounting numbers as “inscription”: Action at a distance and the development of accounting
Robson, K. (1992) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/0361-3682(92)90019-o · Cited by 721
Toward Information Infrastructure Studies: Ways of Knowing in a Networked Environment
Bowker, G. C., Baker, K. S., Millerand, F., & Ribes, D. (2009) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9789-8_5 · Cited by 693
Boudreau, K. J. (2012) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0678 · Cited by 676
Business planning as pedagogy: Language and control in a changing institutional field
Oakes, L. S., Townley, B., & Cooper, D. J. (1998) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393853 · Cited by 675
Canetti, E. (1960) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 643
A first look at online reputation on Airbnb, where every stay is above average
Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., & Byers, J. W. (2020) · Marketing Letters · doi:10.1007/s11002-020-09546-4 · Cited by 640
A First Look at Online Reputation on Airbnb, Where Every Stay is Above Average
Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., & Byers, J. (2015) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2554500 · Cited by 601
The Mesh: Why the Future of Business Is Sharing
Gansky, L. (2010) · Cited by 599
Successful Industrial Products from Customer Ideas
von Hippel, E. (1978) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.2307/1250327 · Cited by 592
Accounting, organizing, and economizing: connecting accounting research and organization theory
Miller, P., & Power, M. (2013) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2013.783668 · Cited by 588
Business planning as pedagogy: language and control in a changing institutional field
Oakes, L. S., Townley, B., & Cooper, D. J. (2007) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511618925.011 · Cited by 577
Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880-1930
Reynolds, T. S., & Hughes, T. P. (1984) · Technology and Culture · doi:10.2307/3104214 · Cited by 563
Chua, W. F. (1995) · Accounting Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/0361-3682(95)95744-h · Cited by 559
The Enchantments of Infrastructure
Harvey, P. M., & Knox, H. (2012) · Mobilities · doi:10.1080/17450101.2012.718935 · Cited by 559
International Handbook of Internet Research
Hunsinger, J., Allen, M., & Klastrup, L. (2010) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9789-8 · Cited by 559
PENNIES FROM EBAY: THE DETERMINANTS OF PRICE IN ONLINE AUCTIONS*
Lucking‐Reiley, D., Bryan, D., Prasad, N., & Reeves, D. M. (2007) · Journal of Industrial Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6451.2007.00309.x · Cited by 550
Classification Situations: Life- chances in the neoliberal era
Fourcade, M., & Healy, K. (2013) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2013.11.002 · Cited by 544
Reputation and Feedback Systems in Online Platform Markets
Tadelis, S. (2016) · Annual Review of Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-080315-015325 · Cited by 524
(2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-6522 · Cited by 521
In TripAdvisor we trust: Rankings, calculative regimes and abstract systems
Jeacle, I., & Carter, C. (2011) · Accounting Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2011.04.002 · Cited by 515
Miller, P., & Napier, C. (1993) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/0361-3682(93)90047-a · Cited by 506
Multiple versions of markets: Multiplicity and performativity in market practice
Kjellberg, H., & Helgesson, C.-F. (2006) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.05.011 · Cited by 493
Platform Cooperativism. Challenging the Corporate Sharing Economy
Scholz, T. R. (2016) · Cited by 480
Fourcade, M., & Healy, K. (2016) · Socio-Economic Review · doi:10.1093/ser/mww033 · Cited by 474
Digital Discrimination: The Case of Airbnb.com
Edelman, B. G., & Luca, M. (2014) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2377353 · Cited by 471
Technological Platforms and Diversification
Kim, D.-J., & Kogut, B. (1996) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.7.3.283 · Cited by 455
What does organizational change mean? Speculations on a taken for granted category
Paolo Quattrone, A., & Hopper, T. (2001) · Management Accounting Research · doi:10.1006/mare.2001.0176 · Cited by 437
Young, J. J. (2006) · Accounting Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2005.12.005 · Cited by 420
Visualisation and Cognition: Drawing Things Together
Latour, B. (2012) · Cited by 406
Mediating instruments and making markets: Capital budgeting, science and the economy
Miller, P., & O'Leary, T. (2007) · Accounting Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2007.02.003 · Cited by 384
Mouritsen, J., Hansen, A., & Hansen, C. Ø. (2001) · Management Accounting Research · doi:10.1006/mare.2001.0160 · Cited by 372
Self-citation(2011) · Cited by 354
Delirious New York: A retroactive manifesto for Manhattan
Koolhaas, R. (1978) · Cited by 351
Miller, P. (1998) · doi:10.1111/j.1467-954x.1998.tb03474.x · Cited by 344
Accounting, “economic citizenship” and the spatial reordering of manufacture
Miller, P., & O’Leary, T. (1994) · Accounting Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/0361-3682(94)90011-6 · Cited by 333
Disclosing new worlds: Entrepreneurship, democratic action, and the cultivation of solidarity
Spinosa, C., Flores, F., & Dreyfus, H. L. (1995) · Inquiry · doi:10.1080/00201749508602373 · Cited by 323
Accounting as simulacrum and hyperreality: perspectives on income and capital
Macintosh, N. B., Shearer, T. L., Thornton, D. B., & Welker, M. (2000) · Accounting Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/s0361-3682(99)00010-0 · Cited by 313
Caglio, A., & Ditillo, A. (2008) · Accounting Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2008.08.001 · Cited by 307
Google, Facebook, Amazon, eBay: Is the Internet driving competition or market monopolization?
Haucap, J., & Heimeshoff, U. (2014) · International Economics and Economic Policy · doi:10.1007/s10368-013-0247-6 · Cited by 302
Accounting and network coordination
Håkansson, H., & Lind, J. (2004) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/s0361-3682(02)00058-2 · Cited by 301
Open-book accounting in networks
Kajüter, P., & Kulmala, H. I. (2005) · Management Accounting Research · doi:10.1016/j.mar.2005.01.003 · Cited by 299
Asymmetric Information, Adverse Selection and Online Disclosure: The Case of eBay Motors
Lewis, G. M. (2010) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.101.4.1535 · Cited by 288
The Cognitive Basis of Science
Carruthers, P., Stich, S., & Siegal, M. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511613517 · Cited by 287
Next Practices: Knowledge, Infrastructure, and Public Goods at the Bottom of the Pyramid
Elyachar, J. (2012) · Public Culture · doi:10.1215/08992363-1443583 · Cited by 280
Miller, P. (1998) · European Accounting Review · doi:10.1080/096381898336213 · Cited by 275
Disclosing new worlds: entrepreneurship, democratic action, and the cultivation of solidarity
(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.35-2431 · Cited by 272
Dourish, P., & Bell, G. (2007) · Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design · doi:10.1068/b32035t · Cited by 268
Accounting, network complementarities and the development of inter-organisational relations
Mouritsen, J., & Thrane, S. (2006) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2005.04.002 · Cited by 263
Self-citationFrom Artefacts to Infrastructures
Monteiro, E., Pollock, N., Hanseth, O., & Williams, R. (2013) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1007/s10606-012-9167-1 · Cited by 258
The Vanishing American Corporation: Navigating the Hazards of a New Economy
Davis, G. F. (2016) · Cited by 257
Poon, M. (2009) · Accounting Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2009.02.003 · Cited by 239
Millo, Y., & MacKenzie, D. A. (2008) · Accounting Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2008.10.002 · Cited by 232
Looking across rather than up and down: On the need to explore the lateral processing of information
Hopwood, A. G. (1996) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/0361-3682(96)81805-8 · Cited by 222
Socio-Technical Agency in Financial Markets: The Case of the Stock Ticker
Preda, A. (2006) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312706059543 · Cited by 218
Accounting, Territorialization and Power
Mennicken, A., & Miller, P. (2012) · Foucault Studies · doi:10.22439/fs.v0i13.3503 · Cited by 215
Spectacular infrastructure and its breakdown in socialist Vietnam
SCHWENKEL, C. (2015) · American Ethnologist · doi:10.1111/amet.12145 · Cited by 210
Pollock, N., & D’Adderio, L. (2012) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2012.06.004 · Cited by 206
Valuing the Unique: The Economics of Singularities
Swedberg, R. (2011) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.1177/0094306110404515t · Cited by 203
How accounting begins: Object formation and the accretion of infrastructure
Power, M. (2015) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2015.10.005 · Cited by 200
Espeland, W. N. (2010) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.1177/0094306110380384bb · Cited by 192
Partner selection and governance design in interfirm relationships
Dekker, H. C. (2007) · Accounting Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2007.02.002 · Cited by 190
Manufacturing competition: how accounting practices shape strategy making in cities
Kornberger, M., & Carter, C. (2010) · Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/09513571011034325 · Cited by 189
Self-citationLife beyond big data–governing with little analytics
Amoore, L., & Piotukh, V. (2015) · Economy and Society · doi:10.1080/03085147.2015.1043793 · Cited by 187
Scientific cognition as distributed cognition
Giere, R. N. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511613517.016 · Cited by 185
Disembedding the supply chain: institutionalized reflexivity and inter-firm accounting
Seal, W., Berry, A., & Cullen, J. (2004) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/s0361-3682(02)00055-7 · Cited by 182
Inter-organisational cost management: Towards an evolutionary perspective
Coad, A. F., & Cullen, J. (2006) · Management Accounting Research · doi:10.1016/j.mar.2006.02.003 · Cited by 182
Tracking the numbers: Across accounting and finance, organizations and markets
Vollmer, H., Mennicken, A., & Preda, A. (2009) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2008.06.007 · Cited by 174
Moments of valuation exploring sites of dissonance
Antal, A. B. (2015) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702504.001.0001/acprof-9780198702504 · Cited by 169
The road: An ethnography of the Albanian–Greek cross‐border motorway
DALAKOGLOU, D. (2010) · American Ethnologist · doi:10.1111/j.1548-1425.2010.01246.x · Cited by 167
The Effect of Network Ties on Accounting Controls in a Supply Alliance: Field Study Evidence*
Chua, W. F., & Mahama, H. (2007) · Contemporary Accounting Research · doi:10.1506/7156-201w-1290-83h4 · Cited by 156
(2001) · Cited by 150
The Dynamics of Seller Reputation: Theory and Evidence from eBay
Cabral, L., & Hortacsu, A. (2004) · doi:10.3386/w10363 · Cited by 149
(2015) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712282.001.0001 · Cited by 138
Self-citationAccounting as an engine: The performativity of calculative practices and the dynamics of innovation
Revellino, S., & Mouritsen, J. (2015) · Management Accounting Research · doi:10.1016/j.mar.2015.04.005 · Cited by 137
Self-citationThe governance of lateral relations between and within organisations
Meer-Kooistra, J. V. D., & Scapens, R. W. (2008) · Management Accounting Research · doi:10.1016/j.mar.2008.08.001 · Cited by 136
In community we trust: Online security communication at eBay
Boyd, J. (2006) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2002.tb00147.x · Cited by 132
The control revolution: Technological and economic origins of the information society
Koenig, M. E. D. (1988) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/0306-4573(88)90082-9 · Cited by 131
D’Adderio, L., & Pollock, N. (2014) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840614538962 · Cited by 129
The Moral Character of Cryptographic WorkPreprint
Rogaway, P. (2016) · IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive · Cited by 127
The dilemma of implementing controls: The case of managerial accounting
Argyris, C. (1990) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/0361-3682(90)90031-o · Cited by 121
The politics of brand accounting in the United Kingdom
Power, M. (1992) · European Accounting Review · doi:10.1080/09638189200000003 · Cited by 114
Exploring the WOW in online-auction feedback
Weinberg, B. D., & Davis, L. (2005) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.06.004 · Cited by 108
Different open book accounting practices for different purchasing strategies
Agndal, H., & Nilsson, U. (2010) · Management Accounting Research · doi:10.1016/j.mar.2010.04.001 · Cited by 106
Creating a New Object of Government: Making Genetically Modified Organisms Traceable
Lezaun, J. (2006) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312706059461 · Cited by 106
Readings in Accounting for Management Control
Emmanuel, C. R. (1992) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-7138-8 · Cited by 105
Supermarkets and suppliers in the United Kingdom: System integration, information and control
Frances, J., & Garnsey, E. (1996) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/0361-3682(96)00001-3 · Cited by 103
Open-book accounting: Reason for failure of inter-firm cooperation?
Windolph, M., & Möller, K. (2011) · Management Accounting Research · doi:10.1016/j.mar.2011.07.001 · Cited by 94
After calculation? Reflection on critique of economic reason by André Gorz
Power, M. (1992) · Accounting Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/0361-3682(92)90043-r · Cited by 88
Thrane, S., & Hald, K. S. (2006) · Management Accounting Research · doi:10.1016/j.mar.2006.06.001 · Cited by 87
Managing By Numbers: Accounting, Personnel Management and the Creation of a Mathesis
Townley, B. (1995) · Critical Perspectives on Accounting · doi:10.1006/cpac.1995.1052 · Cited by 83
Living in a Material World: Economic Sociology Meets Science and Technology Studies
Abend, G. (2010) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.1177/0094306109356659qq · Cited by 80
Accounting and the construction of the retired person
Graham, C. (2009) · Accounting Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2009.03.001 · Cited by 75
Innovation Policy and the Economy 2014
Kerr, W. R., Lerner, J., & Stern, S. (2015) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226268569.001.0001 · Cited by 74
(2002) · Cited by 70
The visible hand and the crowd: Analyzing organization design in distributed innovation systems
Kornberger, M. (2016) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/1476127016648499 · Cited by 67
Self-citationSources of power and infrastructural conditions in medieval governmental accounting
Jones, M. J. (2009) · Accounting Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2009.01.005 · Cited by 59
Law and technologyThe end of the generative internet
Zittrain, J. (2009) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/1435417.1435426 · Cited by 58
The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins of the Information Society.
Ashworth, W., & Beniger, J. R. (1988) · The Economic History Review · doi:10.2307/2597361 · Cited by 58
The state of affairs: Critical performativity and the online dating industry
Roscoe, P., & Chillas, S. (2014) · Organization · doi:10.1177/1350508413485497 · Cited by 57
Control and Assurance in E-Commerce: Privacy, Integrity, and Security at Ebay
Duh, R.-R., Sunder, S., & Jamal, K. (2002) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.350663 · Cited by 55
Protocol, Control, and Networks
Galloway, A. R., & Thacker, E. (2004) · Grey Room · doi:10.1162/1526381042464572 · Cited by 53
Kurunmäki, L., & Miller, P. (2013) · Business History · doi:10.1080/00076791.2013.838036 · Cited by 50
Why Can Accounting Not Become a Science Like Physics?
Stamp, E. (1981) · Abacus · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6281.1981.tb00098.x · Cited by 49
Trust and reputation on eBay: Towards a legal framework for feedback intermediaries
Rietjens, B. (2006) · Information & Communications Technology Law · doi:10.1080/13600830600557935 · Cited by 49
Boudreau, K. J. (2011) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1826702 · Cited by 48
Mulcahy, D. (2016) · Cited by 46
Schneiberg, M., & Berk, G. (2010) · Research in the Sociology of Organizations · doi:10.1108/s0733-558x(2010)0000031011 · Cited by 46
Klein, T. J., Lambertz, C., Spagnolo, G., & Stahl, K. O. (2009) · International Journal of Electronic Business · doi:10.1504/ijeb.2009.026532 · Cited by 40
Alenius, E., Lind, J., & Strömsten, T. (2015) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.01.008 · Cited by 37
Warf, B. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-25900-5_52-1 · Cited by 37
Adverse Selection and Reputation Systems in Online Auctions: Evidence fom eBay Motors
Wolf, J. R., & Muhanna, W. A. (2005) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 31
Avital, M., Carroll, J. M., Hjalmarsson, A., Levina, N., Malhotra, A., & Sundararajan, A. (2015) · International Conference on Information Systems · Cited by 29
The Effect of Network Ties on Accounting Controls in a Supply Alliance: Field Study EvidencePreprint
Chua, W. F., & Mahama, H. (2006) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.943576 · Cited by 29
Mouritsen, J. (2010) · Critical Perspectives on Accounting · doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2010.06.015 · Cited by 25
Self-citationThe ‘problem’ of the office: Scientific management, governmentality and the strategy of efficiency
Jeacle, I., & Parker, L. (2013) · Business History · doi:10.1080/00076791.2013.838034 · Cited by 23
Benkler, Y. R. (2012) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/2145204.2145206 · Cited by 23
Ebay law: The legal implications of the C2C electronic commerce model
Guadamuz González, A. (2003) · Computer Law & Security Report · doi:10.1016/s0267-3649(03)00604-6 · Cited by 22
Global Financial Technologies: Scoping Systems That Raise the World
Cetina, K. K., & Grimpe, B. (2008) · Living in a Material World · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262162524.003.0006 · Cited by 21
Internal/inter-firm control dynamics and power—A case study of the Ericsson-Vodafone relationship
Kraus, K., & Strömsten, T. (2016) · Management Accounting Research · doi:10.1016/j.mar.2016.04.001 · Cited by 18
Towards Accounting in Network Settings
Lind, J., & Thrane, S. (2010) · CBS Research Portal (Copenhagen Business School) · doi:10.4324/9780203854310-12 · Cited by 17
'Vettes and Lemons on EbayPreprint
Adams, C., Hosken, L., & Newberry, P. W. (2006) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.880780 · Cited by 14
Lury, C., & Marres, N. (2015) · Making Things Valuable · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712282.003.0012 · Cited by 11
Legal Challenges of Online Reputation Systems
Chandler, J. A., El‐Khatib, K., Benyoucef, M., et al. (2011) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-207-7.ch004 · Cited by 9
Strategy, IT and control @ eBay, 1995-2005: The management control system (MCS) as consumer product
N. Stone, D., N. Nikitkov, A., & C. Miller, T. (2014) · Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management · doi:10.1108/qram-06-2013-0025 · Cited by 8
Miller, P. (2008) · Cited by 4
Give Me a Two-by-Two Matrix and I Will Create the Market: The Socio-Materiality of RankingsPreprint
Pollock, N. (2011) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1928864 · Cited by 1
Infrastructures as Ontological Experiments
Jensen, C. B., & Morita, A. (2015) · Engaging Science, Technology, and Society · doi:10.17351/ests2015.21
Asymmetric Information, Adverse Selection and Online Disclosure: The Case of eBay Motors
Lewis, G. (2010) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1358341
The dilemma of implementing controls: the case of managerial accounting
Argyris, C. (1990) · Readings in Accounting for Management Control · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-7138-8_30
Private Ordering on the Internet: The EBay Community of Traders
Baron, D. P. (2002) · Business and Politics · doi:10.1080/1369525021000158381
Hippel, E. V. (1978) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224297804200109
Global Financial Technologies: Scoping Systems That Raise the World
Cetina, K. K., & Grimpe, B. (2008) · Living in a Material World · doi:10.7551/mitpress/7838.003.0008
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Deleuze, 1992, 59, 3
- Luca, 2016, Designing online marketplaces, Vol. 17
- Zittrain, 2006, The generative internet, Harvard Law Review, 1190, 1974
Cited by
Sorted by citations
What Do Platforms Do? Understanding the Gig Economy
Vallas, S., & Schor, J. B. (2020) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054857 · Cited by 1,354
“In addition to Kornberger et al. (2017), Davis (2016a,b), using the term Uberization, has argued that platforms are the next stage in an evolution away from the modern corporation, although his account is more teleological than ours.”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Invisible Cage: Workers’ Reactivity to Opaque Algorithmic Evaluations
Rahman, H. A. (2021) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/00018392211010118 · Cited by 375
“…shown that third-party evaluations often provide transparency and accountability for external audiences, it has also suggested that actors subject to third-party evaluations experience them as a form of control (Espeland and Sauder, 2016; Brandtner, 2017; Kornberger, Pflueger, and Mouritsen, 2017).”
BackgroundInfluentialIntroduction: Critical studies of digital education platforms
Decuypere, M., Grimaldi, E., & Landri, P. (2021) · Critical Studies in Education · doi:10.1080/17508487.2020.1866050 · Cited by 337
Agostino, D., Saliterer, I., & Steccolini, I. (2021) · Financial Accountability and Management · doi:10.1111/faam.12301 · Cited by 271
Cameron, L. D., & Rahman, H. (2022) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2021.1557 · Cited by 269
“This control arrangement represents a conceptual departure from traditional modes of managing service workers in that the platform and the customer have control over workers during different stages of the work process (Kornberger et al. 2017, Vallas and Schor 2020).”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Kornberger, M., Pflueger, D., & Mouritsen, J.
- Affiliations
- Copenhagen Business School (DK)
- Corresponding author
- Kornberger, Martin
- Venue
- Accounting Organizations and Society
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-07
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 60
- Pages
- 79-95
- ISSN
- 0361-3682 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2725114605
- Cited by
- 349
- References
- 204
- Citations by year
- 2026: 48 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4
- FWCI
- 36.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Accounting Organizations and Society (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- CBS Research Portal (Copenhagen Business School) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- WU Research (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Accounting and Organizational Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Accounting Theory and Financial Reporting
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
- Keywords
- platform organizations, accounting practice, heterarchy, peer review, auditing, eBay, Uber, Airbnb, management accounting, distributed control, relationality, generativity, new organizational forms
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
