MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041048397 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2006.9695660

Opportunity Knocks: Entrepreneurship, informality and home gardening in South Texas

2006· article· en· W2041048397 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael J. Pisani, David W. Yoskowitz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicTaxation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipUnderdevelopmentScale (ratio)Economic growthBusinessSociologyGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores small‐scale and primarily informal entrepreneurship through the lens of self‐employed home gardeners in South Texas. Though the study site of Laredo, Texas lies within the southwestern border area of the United States, South Texas is best characterized by: the underdevelopment of basic infrastructure (e.g., physical, educational, and social), the inadequate development of human resources and income, and the degraded environment. Nonetheless, self‐employed gardeners have improved their life chances, in spite of the region's challenges, earning 1.7 times the legal minimum wage. Additional results based on the survey of one‐hundred (100) self‐employed gardeners reveal a nearly even split between full‐time and part‐time employment, the importance of the border and the proximity of Mexico to the supply and informality of gardeners, and the ease of market entry into the gardening profession. Four propositions for further research for border entrepreneurship and informality are offered.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations18
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicTaxation and Compliance StudiesFrench-language works237,207