MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1595308232 · doi:10.25916/sut.26269171

Fostering indigenous entrepreneurship: a case study of the Membertou first nation, Nova Scotia, Canada

2006· article· en· W1595308232 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert Kayseas, Kevin Hindle, Robert B. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousEntrepreneurshipNova scotiaGovernment (linguistics)Economic growthPopulationPolitical scienceCommunity developmentUnemploymentVariety (cybernetics)GeographySociologyEthnologyEcologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What are the important factors that foster an environment for investment and entrepreneurship in Indigenous1 communities? Can these fostering factors, and those that hinder investment and entrepreneurship, be identified and generalized across communities and diverse cultures? If so, can the conditions that have been created within successful Canadian Indigenous communities, communities that foster the development and growth of entrepreneurial ventures, be recreated by other Indigenous nations? These questions form a small part of a research project being undertaken by the authors to explore Indigenous entrepreneurship in search of insight into the questions—what is Indigenous entrepreneurship, why do certain communities succeed at it, and what can be generalized from the success of certain successful Canadian Indigenous communities.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0260.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology)Same topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207