MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969884181 · doi:10.3917/rsg.255.0023

Déterminants de l'entrepreneuriat durable : Quelques constats auprès d'étudiants universitaires

2012· article· fr· W1969884181 on OpenAlexaffabout
François Labelle, Étienne St-Jean, Vincent Dutot

Bibliographic record

Venue˜La œRevue des sciences de gestion/˜La œRevue des sciences de gestion, Direction et gestion · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette recherche cherche à identifier l’effet des facteurs institutionnels et individuels dans le développement d’une orientation vers la durabilité. Une enquête auprès de 947 entrepreneurs durables potentiels et de 116 actuels du Québec, de France et de Belgique, tous des étudiants universitaires, a été réalisée. Nos résultats indiquent que les facteurs institutionnels de la taille de la ville d’enfance et du domaine d’étude, tout comme des facteurs individuels, en particulier l’expérience comme gestionnaire, ont une influence sur l’orientation vers la durabilité des entrepreneurs potentiels et actuels. Également, nous sommes à même de constater la présence d’entrepreneurs durables potentiels qui ne sont pas exclusivement altruistes. En effet, certains recherchent aussi les récompenses financières comme source de motivation principale à leur projet et ce, sans contradiction apparente. Ces résultats fournissent des pistes d’action pour stimuler l’orientation vers la durabilité des entrepreneurs potentiels. Mots-clés : Entrepreneurs durables, intention d’entreprendre, motivations à démarrer, institutions.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜La œRevue des sciences de gestion/˜La œRevue des sciences de gestion, Direction et gestionSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207