Examining the Relationship between Psychological Capital and Entrepreneurial Intention: An Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".