The Status of International Ethnic Entrepreneurship Studies: A Co-citation Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the literature of international ethnic entrepreneurship research and explores its historical development over the past four decades. With citation data from Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), including 627 journal articles and 25,731 cited references, we conducted a co-citation analysis to explore the intellectual structure of international ethnic entrepreneurship studies. The results show that international ethnic entrepreneurship studies focus on Chinese ethnic entrepreneurs, followed by Cubans, Koreans and blacks. The results also show that contemporary international ethnic entrepreneurship studies have shifted their foci from exploring ethnic-immigrant enclaves to studying immigrant business and self-employment as well as social embeddedness in ethnic business over the past four decades. This study thus identifies the knowledge essentials of ethnic entrepreneurship research and profiles the most influential journals, publications and scholars and their relationships in this field. The results of this study also provide a useful tool for researchers to access the literature of international ethnic entrepreneurship research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.128 | 0.211 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".