MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154614125 · doi:10.1108/00251740210437707

An entrepreneurial logic for the new economy

2002· article· en· W2154614125 on OpenAlex
John Cunningham, Philip Gerrard, Herbert Schoch, Chung Lai Hong

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

VenueManagement Decision · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive reframingSet (abstract data type)Action (physics)Control (management)Diversity (politics)Process (computing)BusinessComputer scienceMarketingEconomicsSociologyManagementSocial psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Managers and entrepreneurs are increasingly being challenged to respond to a world where it is harder to effectively make and implement their decisions. Over half the decisions managers make are never implemented. We have observed entrepreneurs and managers in a wide range of situations in various countries, who illustrate a different set of assumptions for making decisions. They illustrate an entrepreneurial logic, a process of creatively defining and taking action to make sense out of situations which require new frameworks, assumptions and understandings. They assume that many challenges are not predictable and controllable. Certain control‐oriented attitudes and behaviors inhibit people from thinking this way, such as attempts to make decisions without fully understanding the right question, and overly relying on statistics. Certain reframing attitudes and behaviors – diversity in thinking, asking the right questions, and reframing and adapting quickly – illustrate ways to make sense of the paradoxes and uncertainties in the new economy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.217 · 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