Perspective research entrepreneurship output performance in 1992–2009
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims on research entrepreneurship output performance from 1992 to 2009. Data are based on the online version of ISI Web of Science from 1992 to 2009 focusing on SSCI publishing paper that topic is to respect on entrepreneurship. This study synthetically uses the bibliometric method, study entrepreneurship institute and country analysis, source title, author keyword, and keyword plus analysis, to map global research entrepreneurship during the period of 1992–2009. The data shows research entrepreneurship performance top fifty countries ranking is USA, UK, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Australia, France, Italy, Finland, Israel, Singapore, Denmark and Switzerland. The top ten publication institutes is Univ Nottingham, UK; Indiana Univ, USA; Max Planck Inst Econ, Germany; Univ Minnesota, USA; Babson Coll, USA; Harvard Univ, USA; Rensselaer Polytech Inst, USA; Univ Illinois, USA; Erasmus Univ, Netherlands and Case Western Reserve Univ, USA. The result finding four issues of innovation, entrepreneurship capital, corporate culture, and economic growth are the most popular issues in the research entrepreneurship field in the future. This investigation will help researchers realize the panorama of global research entrepreneurship trend, and establish further research direction.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it