MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292762401

Editorial: Entrepreneurship in the 21st Century

2012· editorial· en· W2292762401 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chris McPhee

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2012
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHuman Resource and Talent Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsEngineeringLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Welcome to the August issue of the TIM Review. This month’s theme is Entrepreneurship in the 21st Century. For this issue, we asked authors to focus on aspects of entrepreneurship that represent new challenges or paradigm shifts for entrepreneurs, managers, and researchers. In the first article, Blair Winsor from Edinburgh Napier University’s business school in the United Kingdom examines the impact of time pressure on innovation. Through his in-depth study of a successful mediumsized consultancy, he asks whether managers should increase or decrease the time pressures imposed on project teams if they wish to enhance innovation in their firms. The results yielded three practical implications for management teams and underscored the importance of the effects of time for innovation. Next, Tom Duxbury, PhD Candidate in the Sprott School of Business at Carleton University in Ottawa, draws upon his academic research and practical experience mentoring startups to distinguish between creativity and innovation in the context of entrepreneurship. While many entrepreneurs use the terms “creativity” and “innovation” interchangeably, this article emphasizes the importance of commercialization with respect to the latter term and the need to foster organizational cultures to support both creative and innovative activities. The author includes three specific recommendations for entrepreneurs wishing to maximize the creative (and innovative) potential of their organizations.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0100.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.328 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicHuman Resource and Talent ManagementFrench-language works237,207