MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313300281 · doi:10.1177/1476127012460944

Balancing the skill sets of founders: Implications for the quality of organizational outputs

2013· article· en· W2313300281 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter W. Roberts, Giacomo Negro, Anand Swaminathan

Bibliographic record

VenueStrategic Organization · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)BusinessKnowledge managementProcess managementIndustrial organizationComputer scienceOperations managementMarketingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The jack-of-all-trades theory of entrepreneurship suggests that technically adept employees require additional skills in order to effectively transition to the more generalist role of founder. However, it is silent about the effect of broader skill acquisition on the quality of the outputs that new ventures produce. This silence is problematic given ecological research that indicates how working across categories can hinder one’s performance in a focal role. This article examines the relationship between the pattern of prior career experiences of founders in the restaurant industry and consumer evaluations of the food that their restaurants produce. According to this analysis of 404 Toronto restaurants, founders with more prior kitchen experience receive superior food quality evaluations. However, their prior ownership experience – that which broadens their skill sets – has more tenuous implications. At the extreme, food quality ratings associated with restaurant founders who also claim to be head chefs at founding are harmed by their accumulated ownership experience.

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)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrategic OrganizationSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207