MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032295228 · doi:10.4324/9780203877326

A History of Entrepreneurship

2009· book· en· W2032295228 on OpenAlexaff
Robert F. Hébert, Albert N. Link

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Theory and Institutions
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipHistoryPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This book establishes a chronological trace of the entrepreneur as treated in economic literature in order to give a more wholesome perspective to contemporary writings and teachings on entrepreneurship. It focuses on the nature and role of the entrepreneur, and of entrepreneurship, as revealed in economic literature as early as the eighteenth century, when Richard Cantillon first coined the term 'entrepreneur'. The authors then trace how Joseph Schumpeter's perspective, among other’s, on entrepreneurship came to dominate the world's understanding of the term. Due to Schumpeter’s dominant influence, entrepreneurship has come to occupy a primary role in the theory of economic development. In this book Hébert and Link discuss various key topics including the German Tradition, the Austrian and the English School of thought as well as individuals such as Alfred Marshall and Jeremy Bentham. The historical survey also illustrates the tension that often exists between "theory" and "practice" and how it has been difficult for economic theory to assimilate a core concept that plays a vital role in social and economic change. Finally, the book exposes the many different facets of entrepreneurship as they have been perceived by some of the great economists throughout the ages.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.145 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations183
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEconomic Theory and InstitutionsFrench-language works237,207