MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2088471903

Success Without Upward Mobility: Evidence from Small Accounting Practices

2005· article· en· W2088471903 on OpenAlexaff
Irene M. Gordon, Carolyne Smart, Colleen Collins‐Dodd

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessMarketingSample (material)Small businessAccountingQualitative propertyPublic relationsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How small business success is defined is evaluated by exploring the definitions of and relationships between business and personal success. Survey responses are gathered from those operating sole proprietorship accounting businesses. The data consist of quantitative and qualitative elements. Quantitative responses consist of importance ratings for the nineteen business success items plus the individual respondents' demographic characteristics, such as age and income level. The qualitative data are the written personal success definitions provided by the respondents. Controlling for business and personal characteristics, it is found that client satisfaction and personal success are most important in defining business success, whereas personal success is more closely related to the business success factor of personal success than to client satisfaction. Nineteen success factors are developed based on the financial services sector. Categories are broken down into people-centered, innovation/technology, financial, self-actualization, and networking/social elements. Findings indicate that for this sample of accounting business proprietors, business success is primarily defined by customer satisfaction followed by personal success, which are people-centered dimensions. Further, whether owner-managers with different personal or professional characteristics define business success in the same way, the findings show that they generally do. However, some groups do find financial success to be the most important sign of success. (JSD)

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences→French-language works237,207→