MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W325023111

A Panoramic Overview of Entrepreneurship: Insights from Different Regions of the World a Note from the Guest Editor

2008· article· en· W325023111 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bill Todorovic

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEntrepreneurshipViewpointsPhenomenonCorporationArgument (complex analysis)PassionTransformational leadershipSociologyPolitical sciencePublic relationsMarketingBusinessPsychologyLawSocial psychologyEpistemology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Our media is rich with reports of individuals who, in their pursuit of vision and passion, achieved impressive feats and successes. For some time now, the importance of entrepreneurship to economic development has been well recognized and accepted. Our schools teach entrepreneurship, governments encourage entrepreneurial engagements, and our society admires entrepreneurial achievers. It is becoming more evident that entrepreneurship is indeed a global phenomenon. Canada is a country that prides itself on being a mosaic of different cultures and backgrounds. It is therefore fitting that a Canadian journal presents an overview of entrepreneurial insights from different regions. This issue presents seven papers from four continents. These papers paint images of entrepreneurship from different viewpoints, presenting many similarities and differences of this global phenomenon. Three papers discuss the effect of corporate culture on entrepreneurship (France, US and Austria), two examine national level practices (Iran and Thailand), another examines entrepreneurship education (UK), and one compares developing and developed countries of Europe (Poland). Fayolle et al., Matzler et al., and Didia consider cultural effects on entrepreneurship in France, Austria and the US. Fayolle et al. makes a strong argument that founders and first actors of entrepreneurial ventures have a pronounced effect on the subsequent culture developed by a corporation. Matzler et al. find that transformational leadership, and corporate culture nurtured through it, increases innovation and SME performance. Didia discusses the effectiveness of minority owned businesses in US and finds that their performance is significantly worse than their non-minority counterparts. These papers show the impact of culture on entrepreneurship. On the other hand, papers by Feyzbakhsh et al. and Suntornpithug and Suntornpithug show some differences in government-based activities between Iran and Thailand. These differences point to the power of the awareness of entrepreneurial potential. Wasilczuk and Zieba examine the environment faced by female entrepreneurs in developing and developed countries in Europe, while Penaluna and Penaluna discuss best practices of entrepreneurship education, as evidenced in UK. These papers all show the need to be aware of entrepreneurial potential and some of the similarities and differences found across different regions of the globe. Following is brief summary of different papers in this issue. Matzler et al. discuss the relationship between leadership and performance of SMEs in Austria. Utilizing a sample of 300 SMEs from Carinthia (Austria), they show a significant direct relationship between transformational leadership, product innovation and SME performance. They also discuss the advantages of innovative pursuits, especially in the face of environmental munificence, suggesting that the results may also be regionally differentiated. Wasilczuk and Zieba examine regional aspects of entrepreneurship by studying the characteristics of female entrepreneurs in developing and developed (EU-15) economies of the EU. Specifically, they examine the characteristics of female entrepreneurs in Poland during the transition period in comparison to other transforming countries and to the EU-15 countries. Utilizing survey as well as secondary data, they find no significant regional differences. Utilizing 186 cases, this study examines food production, wood working and textile industry sectors. The authors find no significant differences between female entrepreneurs in Poland and those of EU-15, and the barriers to entry are similar to those faced by male entrepreneurs. Finally, they found no significant differences in the profile of female entrepreneurs in developed and developing countries. Examining the Middle East, Feyzbakhsh et al. evaluate entrepreneurial potential of large size organizations in Iran. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,016
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,048
Tête enseignante GPT0,239
Écart entre enseignants0,191 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Small Business & EntrepreneurshipMême sujetEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesTravaux en français237 207