Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this research is to present the results of a recent interpretive study of 11 small Central Vancouver Island firms in British Columbia, Canada, which yield new interpretations of the nature of problem‐solving processes within the wider context of managerial capability as a critical contributor to small business survival. Design/methodology/approach The methodological approach taken is positioned within an emergent body of research in the field of small business and entrepreneurship that applies an interpretive paradigm to uncover the complex facets of how individuals develop their capabilities and management practices with a particular emphasis on the small business owner‐manager. More specifically, the critical incident technique method, along with an approach to data analysis and coding that draws from grounded theory, is combined and applied as a qualitative research strategy to yield new understandings of problem solving in small firms. Findings Research findings reveal the intuitive, improvised and non‐linear nature of how problems are actually solved in the sample of small firms studied, in contrast with a number of well‐known theoretical research frameworks that propose well‐defined and delineated steps in the problem‐solving process. Research limitations/implications The small sample size and the methods chosen to conduct the research do not allow for the generalization of findings to all firms, yet do allow for the emergence of themes among the businesses that participated in the study. Research could be expanded by applying a similar research design to small firms in other regions of Canada to determine whether significant differences or similarities exist and to identify the implications for research in the area of problem solving in small firms. Originality/value The identification of problems as critical incidents represents a primary focus of the research and provides a more explanatory account of problem solving from the perspective of small firm owner‐managers involved in the process. The analysis of these highly subjective interpretations represents valuable research findings that provide a basis for the development of theory on problem solving in small firms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".