MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Having Arrived: The Homogeneity of High‐Growth Small Firms

2006· article· en· W2128346797 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yolande E. Chan, Niraj Bhargava, Christopher T. Street

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Small Business Management · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaRoyal Roads UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomogeneity (statistics)Small businessBusinessRevenueMarketingPopulationBusiness developmentIndustrial organizationAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the homogeneity of small firms that have achieved and sustained high growth. Using a recent population of the 50 “Best Managed” Canadian firms identified as achieving high business growth for three or more consecutive years, firm homogeneity in terms of current management challenges is analyzed. In contrast to the rich body of literature available regarding the heterogeneity of managerial challenges and patterns during small business growth and development, this study finds that once small businesses begin to sustain high growth, their reported management challenges converge. We find that, controlling for location and performance, the high-growth small firms in our population experience similar management challenges regardless of the specific firm size, revenue level, or industry. Our results challenge the “received wisdom” that suggests the managerial challenges faced by small firms during their business growth and development always vary. Management implications and future research directions are discussed.

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)0.010
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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations77
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Small Business ManagementSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207