“Start‐a‐Business”: an experiment in education through entrepreneurship
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose There is wide consensus on the importance of experiential entrepreneurship education. The purpose of this article is to investigate whether two unconventional experiential courses, with the style and content that the authors would like to have experienced before becoming entrepreneurs, can be successfully grafted on to the more conventional offerings of a large university business school. Design/methodology/approach The authors create learning by allowing a small group of students with serious business ideas to actually be entrepreneurs (rather than pretending to be) as they evaluate, optimize, and start running their businesses within the university course structure. All distractions from these goals, such as formal business plans and academic exercises, are removed, and direct contact with outside stakeholders is strongly emphasized. Fellow‐students and the instructor provide constant feedback and ideas to adapt and improve the businesses. Findings The courses meet a variety of accepted experiential education criteria, receive highly positive student evaluations, and generate many real businesses. Practical implications The methodology provides a practical, scalable, and effective way to provide university education through entrepreneurship. Originality/value The approach described in the paper has many unusual aspects and works very well. It may be of interest to others attempting innovations in the teaching of entrepreneurship and of the enterprising mindset.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it