MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007532334 · doi:10.1108/14626001311298457

Gender, disadvantage and enterprise support – lessons from women's business centres in North America and Europe

2013· article· en· W2007532334 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Small Business and Enterprise Development · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipWork (physics)Context (archaeology)DisadvantageGender mainstreamingPublic relationsEconomic growthBusinessMarketingPolitical scienceSociologyEconomicsGender equalityEngineeringFinanceGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The aim of this paper is to analyse support measures in the USA, Canada and Sweden aimed at encouraging women to start their own business and/or promote growth in women‐owned businesses, and in particular the role of women's business centres. It examines whether existing initiatives of this kind have proven successful in their stated and unstated aims; and if elements of practice are transferable to other countries and contexts. The paper also contributes to the gender mainstreaming debate. Design/methodology/approach Through in‐depth interviews across four countries with managers of such centres and other business support personnel, policy‐makers and practitioners, the paper constructs a view of how women's business centres fit into the overall policy context, and how they have aided the development of women's enterprise. Findings The use of international comparisons permits the identification of common approaches to enterprise policy for women. Policy‐makers and practitioners will appreciate the nuanced view of the elements that make up several lauded initiatives aimed at supporting women's entrepreneurship, how (and to what degree) these elements work together and how these elements may be used elsewhere. Research limitations/implications The paper suggests the need for more nuanced understanding of client needs, whether male or female, and the role this might play in the delivery of business support. Practical implications Policymakers should be clear regarding the objectives of women's centres, as between support principally directed at unemployed/low income groups and increasing the business start‐up rate per se among women (leading to economic growth), and even whether support should be differentiated by gender. Social implications Women's centres are working mainly for the more disadvantaged women, rather than those with real potential as entrepreneurs. Such centres may also reinforce stereotypes of “women's businesses”. Originality/value The key contribution of this paper is that, compared to previous work, it provides a more critical perspective on the specifics of women's business centre initiatives, exploring both the processes and outcomes that lie behind the simple output‐related success measures that often characterise mainstream policy evaluations.

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 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 score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.684

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.210 · 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