Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the current funding challenges facing technology startups and describes new models based on smaller investments and collective action. First, the advantages and disadvantages of traditional startup funding models are presented, with an emphasis on venture capital and angel investment. Next, an overview of existing seed funds, or seed accelerators, shows how entrepreneurs can leverage this approach to access subsequent rounds of funding and create successful ventures. Then, an overview of crowd funding is provided, including examples of companies that have adopted this approach to funding startups and their founders. Finally, the article presents the basis of a new approach that uses crowd funding as means of attracting investors to collectives. In these business ecosystems, startups are exposed to less risk and investors can benefit from attractive returns by investing in these promising startups.
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 | 0.027 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.004 |
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".