Comprehensive Australian Study of Entrepreneurial Emergence (CAUSEE): Design, Data Collection and Descriptive Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Comprehensive Australian Study of Entrepreneurial Emergence (CAUSEE) is a research programme that aims to uncover the factors that initiate, hinder and facilitate the process of emergence of new economic activities and organizations. It is widely acknowledged that entrepreneurship is one of the most important forces shaping changes in a country’s economic landscape (Baumol 1968; Birch 1987; Acs 1999). An understanding of the process by which new economic activity and business entities emerge is vital (Gartner 1993; Sarasvathy 2001). An important development in the study of ‘nascent entrepreneurs’ and ‘firms in gestation’ was the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics (PSED) (Gartner et al. 2004) and its extensions in Argentina, Canada, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. Yet while PSED I is an important first step towards systematically studying new venture emergence, it represents just the beginning of a stream of nascent venture studies – most notably PSED II is currently being undertaken in the US (2005– 10) (Reynolds and Curtin 2008).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".