MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019370209 · doi:10.1002/job.432

A biosocial model of entrepreneurship: the combined effects of nurture and nature

2007· article· en· W2019370209 on OpenAlex
Roderick E. White, Stewart Thornhill, Elizabeth Hampson

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Organizational Behavior · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNature versus nurtureBiosocial theoryEntrepreneurshipSociologyEssentialismNew VenturesPsychologySocial psychologyEconomicsPersonalityAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Why do people get involved in the creation of new ventures? Prior research suggests entrepreneurial behavior has multiple causes. Nurture explanations; often couched in terms of sociological theories like social learning have been popular. Aspects of nascent entrepreneurs' social contexts, notably their family business background, have been associated with new venture creation. But nature also appears to play a role. Other research has linked heritable biological factors, including testosterone, with the career choice to launch a new venture. This study presents theory and evidence linking the combination of both sociological and biological factors with new venture creation: a biosocial model of entrepreneurship. Empirical results indicate new venture creation is more likely among those individuals having a higher testosterone level in combination with a family business background. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.226
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