MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143417004 · doi:10.3905/jpe.2015.18.2.023

An S-Curve Model of the Start-Up Life Cycle Through the Lens of Customer Development

2015· article· en· W2143417004 on OpenAlex
Jeffrey Overall, Sean Wise

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Private Equity · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPrivate Equity and Venture Capital
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipPortfolioMarketingEquity (law)Private equityBusinessEquity premium puzzlePhase (matter)EconomicsActuarial scienceFinancePolitical scienceCapital asset pricing model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using the S-curve model of entrepreneurship, start-up funding, and customer development as a theoretical foundation, researchers can go in several directions. First, they can take a case study approach by investigating young start-ups and, using their financial statements, plotting performance longitudinally. Next, qualitative assessments can be done to understand potential risks that occur at each phase. Third, researchers can develop a greater understanding of the antecedents of early problems and what corrective actions can be implemented to curb the onset of trouble. Finally, large-scale quantitative assessments can be conducted to understand whether certain control variables, such as industry, culture, level of industrial development of the country, and experience of the entrepreneurs, can influence the stages in the S-curve model of entrepreneurship, start-up funding, and customer development. <b>TOPICS:</b>Private equity, analysis of individual factors/risk premia, statistical methods, equity portfolio management

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 science0.0020.001
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.190 · 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