An Assessment of Validity in Entrepreneurship Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on an analysis of empirical articles published in the highest-rated academic journals between 1999 and 2003, we examined the current state of entrepreneurship research in terms of its validity. We collected 275 relevant publications in order to explore the entrepreneurship field with respect to internal validity, external validity, construct validity and statistical conclusion validity. Our aim was to gain insight into the dominant methodological and statistical practices that currently shape the field, shed light on possible gaps and compare these observations with the findings in general management literature. We found that entrepreneurship studies are mainly cross-sectional using surveys or field study as methods, emphasising external validity. Entrepreneurship research could benefit from more triangulation in research strategies, more advanced analytical techniques and methodologies, and from more longitudinal research resulting in higher validity levels. However, a positive trend towards more longitudinal research and triangulation in data sources is already visible.
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 | 0.230 | 0.463 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.043 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".