Gender, Personal Traits, and Entrepreneurial Intentions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender differences in entrepreneurial intentions and agentic traits frequently linked to entrepreneurship (locus of control, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, risk-taking propensity, and proactiveness) were examined using a sample of 535 women and 283 men, all of them university students. Self-report data were collected through a questionnaire consisting of several scales. MANOVA results showed gender differences in entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial self-efficacy, men feeling more efficient to create a new venture and being more prone to do so than women. Nevertheless, major area and age explained differences in the variables studied better than gender. All this evidence supports the idea that the lower entrepreneurial activity observed in women refers not only to the verifiable creation of a new business, but that it extends to the first phase relating to career choice and the formation of intentions in this respect. This raises the need to approach the problem of scarce entrepreneurial initiatives in women from the very early stages of career choice, when the person is still weighing the different job alternatives and making decisions about them.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".