MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Institutional Obstacles to Entrepreneurship

2009· book-chapter· en· W2172230334 on OpenAlexaff
Kathy Fogel, Ashton Hawk, Randall Mørck, Bernard Yeung

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultitudeEntrepreneurshipJudgementFutures studiesGovernment (linguistics)Public relationsBusinessQuality (philosophy)MarketingEntrepreneurship educationKnowledge managementPolitical scienceComputer scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article focuses on institutional obstacles to entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs carry out a highly complicated composite act. They need intelligence to collect and digest information about business opportunities. They need foresight about the possibilities new technologies and other developments create. They need judgement and leadership skills to found a company and guide its growth. They need communication skills to enthuse financiers to back their vision. The number of active entrepreneurs therefore depends on how many individuals possess these skills. But skills are not endowments. Individuals decide to develop those skills that advance their well being and to forgo developing those that do not. The prospects of a career as an entrepreneur depend on the economic environment, which can be facilitative or detrimental. A multitude of factors determine this environment: rules and regulations, the quality of government, the availability of education, and the ambient culture.

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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0120.004
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations122
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207