Miller (1983) Revisited: A Reflection on EO Research and Some Suggestions for the Future
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Theoretical or conceptualConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.666
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.973
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
Using Miller (1983) as a starting point, this article reviews the literature on entrepreneurial orientation or “EO.” It summarizes Miller's major points before recapping some of the subsequent literature and assessing why EO has become such a prominent topic. It identifies weaknesses in the literature, some of which, paradoxically, Miller wrote his article to guard against. It then makes recommendations for extending conceptually, and improving methodologically, future research on EO, arguing the importance of linking EO to current theories in strategy, organization theory, and economics. Methodological reorientations are also suggested to arrive at more cumulative and practical findings.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
- Topic
- Entrepreneurship Studies and Influences
- Field
- Business, Management and Accounting
- Canadian institutions
- University of Alberta
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- MillerEpistemologyGuard (computer science)Entrepreneurial orientationSociologyReflection (computer programming)Point (geometry)Management scienceEngineering ethicsManagementEntrepreneurshipPsychologyComputer sciencePolitical sciencePhilosophyEconomicsEngineeringLaw
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes