MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2469730151 · doi:10.5430/ijba.v7n4p43

Factors Affecting Individual Attitudes and Perceptions towards Entrepreneurship: Does Education Really Matter?

2016· article· en· W2469730151 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Özge Demiral

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business Administration · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipPremisePerceptionEntrepreneurship educationAffect (linguistics)European unionMarketingPsychologySociologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceEconomicsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emphasizing the importance of new enterprises, studies have immensely attempted to explore what affect the entrepreneurship intentions of both potential and nascent entrepreneurs. In the literature, one of the factors with unclear effects on the entrepreneurship is the education that ambiguous results underline the necessity of distinguishing between educations. The purpose of this paper is to identify the factors affecting the attitudes and perceptions towards entrepreneurship with a special focus on the education classified as general and entrepreneurship education/training. The study uses a panel dataset of 11 European Union countries and over the period of 2007-2013, based on the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor’s surveys pool. Findings reveal that the effects of the education indicators are still inconclusive and in general, individual attitudes and perceptions are more sensitive to the market-based aspects. Overall results support the premise that education in both general and entrepreneurial contexts is needed to be customized according to country-specific dynamics.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Business AdministrationSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207