MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146681586 · doi:10.1177/0266242605048870

Promoting Enterprise Development or Subsidizing Tradition?

2005· article· en· W2146681586 on OpenAlex
Miwako Nitani, Allan Riding

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

VenueInternational Small Business Journal Researching Entrepreneurship · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPrivate Equity and Venture Capital
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoanSubsidyContext (archaeology)BusinessConstraint (computer-aided design)EntrepreneurshipCapital (architecture)MicrofinanceFinancial systemFinanceEconomicsMarket economyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Governments and trade associations have often intervened in credit markets to guarantee loans made by financial institutions to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The most active loan guarantee program in the world is the Japanese Credit Supplementation System yet the level of entrepreneurial activity in Japan is extremely low. This paradox suggests that lack of available capital may not be the only constraint on entrepreneurial activity. This empirical article examines the Japanese loan guarantee system. It reports on its strengths and weakness, finding that the Japanese Credit Supplementation System emphasizes the salvage of firms facing distress: financial support for new businesses appears to be a lower priority. This focus reflects cultural and social realities of the Japanese context. However, it arguably discourages entrepreneurial activity by both reducing the intensity of Schumpeter’s ‘creative destruction’ and also by artificially maintaining non-viable firms that then compete with unsupported firms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.223 · 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