MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995078193 · doi:10.1142/s108494670900134x

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND LEARNING: THE CASE OF THE CENTRAL AMERICA LEARNING ALLIANCE

2009· article· en· W1995078193 on OpenAlexaff
Merle D. Faminow, Simon E. Carter, Mark Lundy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Developmental Entrepreneurship · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsInternational Development Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipAllianceContext (archaeology)Social learningStakeholderKnowledge managementSocial entrepreneurshipSociologyBusinessPublic relationsEconomic systemPolitical scienceEconomicsComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper sets out to analyze social entrepreneurship in the Central America Learning Alliance, in the context of recent literature on entrepreneurship and learning. Drawing on a recent and rapidly growing literature that describes entrepreneurship as a process that is inherently dynamic and experimental, with learning as a core component, we focus on social entrepreneurship in development as a catalyst of social transformation. A case study of a multi-stakeholder network focused on promoting processes of rural enterprise development, known as the Central America Learning Alliance, is used to illustrate social entrepreneurship in the context of the framework for innovation and learning that is developed in the first part of the paper. We conclude that the key concepts underlying entrepreneurial learning have important implications for social entrepreneurship in the context of building dynamic livelihoods for the poor of Central America.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0260.018
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0020.013
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Developmental EntrepreneurshipSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207