MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1903642008 · doi:10.5539/ass.v11n24p72

Entrepreneurial Barriers Faced by Disabled in India

2015· article· en· W1903642008 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Syed Ahsan Jamil

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProsperityEntrepreneurshipPovertyInclusive growthPer capita incomeDistribution (mathematics)PopulationEconomic growthDisabled peopleDevelopment economicsEconomicsBusinessDemographic economicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

India has witnessed high economic growth rates in the past two decades and there has been a remarkable increase in the per capita income. But unfortunately many sections of the Indian population still remain economically deprived. Disabled persons though constitute a small part of the Indian population but their relative numbers are growing. Disabled lag behind in terms of education and employment which results in poverty. For equitable distribution of wealth and prosperity among all sections of population inclusive growth is necessary. The challenge is therefore not only to achieve higher economic growth rates but also to focus on economic inclusion so that all sections of the society are able to take advantage of opportunities. Promoting entrepreneurship among the disabled is a way to achieve faster and better economic integration. This paper highlights the barriers faced by entrepreneurs with disabilities. Also the paper tries to find out if these barriers are different than those faced by other entrepreneurs. Finally this paper highlights what steps can be taken to prevail over the various types of barriers being faced by disabled entrepreneurs. Keywords: Entrepreneurship, Disabilities, Inclusive Growth, Barriers, Economic Integration

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207