MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026242093 · doi:10.1080/13691060802351222

Business angels and love money investors: segments of the informal market for risk capital

2008· article· en· W2026242093 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.

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

Bibliographic record

VenueVenture Capital · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPrivate Equity and Venture Capital
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVenture capitalInvestment (military)AmateurValue (mathematics)BusinessFinanceMonetary economicsLabour economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This empirical study reports that returns on informal investments made by business angels are significantly higher than those made by non-angels. However, rates of return on informal investments made by friends and family members of business founders are, on average, dismal. This finding reinforces warnings that it may be counterproductive for public policy to encourage ‘amateur’ informal investors, yet stimulation of value-adding business angel investment seems well advised. The relative sizes, in terms of the annual flow of investment funds, in the main segments comprising the informal market were estimated. Love money accounts for more than three times as much annual investment as business angels, who in turn invest more than twice as much annually -- and in many more firms -- as institutional venture capitalists.

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 score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.179 · 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