MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587773882 · doi:10.5539/ass.v13n3p80

Examining the Relationship between Psychological Capital and Entrepreneurial Intention: An Exploratory Study

2017· article· en· W2587773882 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Françoise Contreras, Inge de Dreu, Juan Carlos Espinosa

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptimismPsychologyConstruct (python library)Psychological resilienceSocial psychologyScale (ratio)Capital (architecture)Positive psychological capitalSelf-efficacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study is determine if Entrepreneurial Intention is related to Psychological Capital in business students. Self-efficacy, Hope, Optimism and Resiliency, which are all dimensions of psychological capital, were assessed with the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE), the Hope Scale (HS), the Life Orientation Test Revised (LOT-R) and the Resilience Scale (RS), respectively. The Entrepreneurial Intention was assessed through five statements. According to the results, Entrepreneurial Intention is related to all dimensions of Psychological Capital, mainly with Self-efficacy and Resilience. Psychological Capital as an integrated construct was related to Entrepreneurial Intention as a whole. These findings provide additional evidence about the importance to study Psychological capital as an integrated construct instead of studying its dimensions separately, even more so when studied in relation to Entrepreneurial Intention. In spite of the advances in the knowledge about the individual differences related to entrepreneurial intentions, it is necessary to continue studying this phenomenon, considering that the results are still scarce and inconclusive.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 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

Citations55
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207