MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110971548 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v4n3p265

Impact of Small Entrepreneurship on Sustainable Livelihood Assets of Rural Poor Women in Bangladesh

2012· article· en· W2110971548 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. S. Kabir, Xuexi Hou, Rahima Akther, Jing Wang, Lijia Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivelihoodEntrepreneurshipBusinessSocial capitalSustainabilityVulnerability (computing)Financial capitalStratified samplingAgricultureEconomic growthHuman capitalEconomicsFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study deals with the impact of small scale agricultural entrepreneurship on livelihood assets rural poor women and role of NGOs to developed women living of standard. The sample of the study consisted 300 women entrepreneurs those are involvement with livestock and poultry, fisheries, and vegetables entrepreneurship. Stratified Random sampling technique was used to obtained sample size. The study used the sustainable livelihood analysis framework as an analytical tool to identify ways to advance the livelihood of small entrepreneurship. Tobit and ordered probit regression estimation were used to analyze the result. Livestock and poultry entrepreneurship is significant and positively associated with financial capital, physical and social capital, vegetables entrepreneurship is significant and positively associated with natural capital and physical capital, fisheries entrepreneurship also positive and significantly associated with human capital. Role of NGOs micro credit and institutional support has great impact on women entrepreneurs living of standard. The analysis shows how entrepreneurs can achieve sustainable livelihood through access to a range of livelihood assets. Livestock and poultry entrepreneurs potentially provide higher economic returns, physical and social benefits. However, lack of resources, vulnerability and poor institutional support are identified as constraints to long term sustainability.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations65
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207