MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2261783398 · doi:10.25916/sut.26270377

Self-regulation and entrepreneurial career choice

2006· article· en· W2261783398 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Bryant

Bibliographic record

VenueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipEconomicsLabour economicsPsychologyBusinessFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Why certain people choose to pursue an entrepreneurial career has been identified as one of the defining questions of entrepreneurship (Shane & Venkataraman, 2003). Recent studies of entrepreneurial career choice have focused on the role of 'entrepreneurial cognition' which incorporates the use of mental models, heuristic thinking, intuition and pattern recognition (Baron, 2004). Another important cognitive factor in career selection is self-regulation, which refers to setting goals and then self-directing cognition and behavior towards the achievement of those goals (Vancouver, 2000). Like a number of earlier studies, I explored entrepreneurial self-regulation and career choice in terms of self-efficacy (e.g. Forbes, 2005). However, I also investigated two other important self-regulatory constructs, known as regulatory pride (Higgins & Friedman, 2001) and metacognitive awareness (Schraw, 1994), which have not been studied previously in relation to entrepreneurship (Baron, 2004). The literature suggests that all three constructs are related to career choice in terms of goal-setting and pursuit. Therefore, the investigation of these additional aspects of self-regulation extends and deepens previous research into entrepreneurial career choice and cognition.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology)Same topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207