Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé L'entrepreneuriat international partage avec les autres sous‐champs de l'entrepreneuriat la même hétérogénéité des sujets d'étude et des approches épistémologiques des chercheurs. Ces approches ne sont que rarement clarifiées ou analysées. Est‐il possible à l'heure actuelle d'identifier clairement les principales positions épistémologiques et les courants paradigmatiques en entrepreneurial international? Le premier objectif de cette étude est d'apporter des éléments de réponse à cette question en analysant l'héritage épistémologique de ce domaine d'étude ainsi que les courants paradigmatiques dans les deux champs dont est issu ce domaine, l'entrepreneuriat et la gestion internationale. Une meilleure connaissance des positions adoptées par les chercheurs peut contribuer à mieux définir l'entrepreneuriat international, et ce malgré la diversité des sujets d'étude. Le deuxième objectif est d'étudier la question de la spécialisation versus l'intégration des paradigmes dans la recherche en entrepreneurial international. Doit‐on, comme le proposent certains chercheurs, réduire le nombre et la diversité des sujets d'étude et des méthodes employées de façon à favoriser l'émergence d'un paradigme unique, ou au contraire tenter d'intégrer différents paradigmes? Abstract International entrepreneurship, like the other subfields of entrepreneurship, covers many different topics. Research in this area is based on different epistemological assumptions that are rarely clarified or analyzed. Is it possible to identify the main epistemological positions and the paradigmatic trends in international entrepreneurship? The first objective of this paper is to analyze the epistemological background of the area and to identify the main paradigmatic trends in the two fields from which international entrepreneurship is derived: entrepreneurship and international business. A better understanding of these positions and trends may make the area easier to define, even if the topics are varied. The second objective is to study the question of specialization versus integration of paradigms in this area. Should researchers reduce the number and diversity of topics and methods, so that a unique paradigm may emerge, or should they rather try to integrate different paradigms?
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".