MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096262278 · doi:10.3905/jpe.2002.320029

Assessing the Commercial Viability of Seed- and Early-Stage Ventures

2002· article· en· W2096262278 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas B. Åstebro

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Private Equity · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPrivate Equity and Venture Capital
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexNew VenturesVenture capitalBusinessActuarial scienceIndustrial organizationMarketingEntrepreneurshipFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The question of how venture capitalists assess the unique characteristics of potential ventures lies at the basis of all venture investing. Yet the data on human versus purely statistical prediction models is troubling, often indicating that humans are poor decision makers in the face of uncertainty. This article looks at over 500 potential new ventures, each reviewed by skilled engineers with some business background. From a list of 37 criteria, four were found to be statistically significant: expected profitability; development risk; functional performance; and IP protection. The rate of accuracy of the skilled predictors was surprisingly high.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations10
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Private EquitySame topicPrivate Equity and Venture CapitalFrench-language works237,207