MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990101219 · doi:10.7202/039139ar

Students’ Perceptions of Family Entrepreneurship – A Study on Family Business Academic Education

2010· article· en· W1990101219 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Juha Kansikas, Anne Laakkonen

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement international · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFamily Business Performance and Succession
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipFamily businessPerceptionOrder (exchange)Public relationsMarketingQualitative researchEntrepreneurship educationBusinessSociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this qualitative research is to analyze university students’ attitudes toward family entrepreneurship. The theoretical framework of the study analyzes the interaction between family business, ownership, and entrepreneurship education. 211 students from the University of Jyväskylä participated in the study during the basic business study course “Introduction to Entrepreneurship and Business Operations” in September 2007. 143 of those wrote a one page essay, either in Finnish or English, on family entrepreneurship and family business ownership. The students were told to write about the phenomena in their own words. The results were analyzed with content analysis in order to understand how to improve the development of family business entrepreneurship education. The results of the study show that family businesses are perceived through the concept of family: a family owns, works in, and manages a family business. Students perceive family businesses as small businesses that employ people locally. Entrepreneurship motivates students, but owning a family business was perceived as unattractive. The results of the study can be utilized in family business entrepreneurship education.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement internationalSame topicFamily Business Performance and SuccessionFrench-language works237,207