MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083435961 · doi:10.1108/17566261111169322

Gender, human capital, and opportunity identification in Mexico

2011· article· en· W2083435961 on OpenAlexaff
María de los Dolores González, Bryan W. Husted

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman capitalIdentification (biology)OriginalityEntrepreneurshipContext (archaeology)Social capitalHuman capital theoryValue (mathematics)SociologyDemographic economicsMarketingEconomicsEconomic growthBusinessSocial scienceGeographyQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand how gender affects the number and innovativeness of business opportunities identified by future entrepreneurs in Mexico. Design/methodology/approach Comparing social feminist theory and human capital theory, this study examines the effect that human capital has on opportunity identification among men and women in Mexico. The authors specifically examine the role of specific and general human capital in the opportunity identification process. A survey instrument was applied to 174 MBA students at a university in Northeastern Mexico. Findings This study shows the significant effect of specific human capital: people with greater prior knowledge of customer needs or problems tended to identify more opportunities; however, the probability of identifying opportunities with innovation increased when individuals had been exposed to different industries through prior work and entrepreneurial experience. Gender differences were not significant for either the number of opportunities identified or the innovativeness of such opportunities. Originality/value This study provides evidence of the effect that human capital and gender have on opportunity identification in Mexico and provides an explanation within a context that has not been studied previously.

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 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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations25
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gender and EntrepreneurshipSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207