MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034956076 · doi:10.1142/s021849581100074x

COUNTRY ENTREPRENEURIAL PROFILES: ASSESSING THE INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP ACROSS COUNTRIES

2011· article· en· W2034956076 on OpenAlexaff
Claude Marcotte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Enterprising Culture · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipBusinessInclusion (mineral)Component (thermodynamics)Economic geographyEconomicsPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Up to now, the focus in comparative international entrepreneurship has been on individual-level indicators of entrepreneurial activity, such as nascent entrepreneurship and small business ownership. However, measuring only the individual component of entrepreneurship appears conceptually incomplete, as it leaves out other important ones, the most obvious being the organizational component. Countries may have different entrepreneurship profiles, depending on the allocation of entrepreneurial endeavors across various levels and dimensions. To augment the content validity of current measurements, this paper aims to integrate and compare individual and organizational indicators of entrepreneurial activity in 22 member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The inclusion of corporate entrepreneurship indicators, derived from the entrepreneurial orientation concept, modified substantially the country rankings based only on small business ownership rates. A significant negative relationship was found between individual and corporate indicators.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Enterprising CultureSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207