CROWDFUNDING AND DIASPORAS : DO CROWDFUNDING PRACTICES CHALLENGE PLAYERS INVOLVED IN PROJECT FINANCING IN THEIR FORMER HOMELAND ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crowdfunding is an emerging form of entrepreneurial finance. Financial flows from migrants and their descendants to their homeland are important. Do crowdfunding platforms disrupt this Diaspora financial flow? Our aim is to contrast and compare the sociology of immigration, Diaspora literature and entrepreneurial finance. We have interviewed all the French Diaspora Crowdfunding startups. We highlighted Diaspora motivation typologies and the evolution of these motivations since the beginning of Crowdfunding. By studying this new literature and interviewing key "Fintechs" entrepreneurs of French platforms, we propose a unique description: Diasporas motivations that are applied to Diaspora and trends on Diaspora investment evolution for this new digital industry. The main results are about the equilibrium between emotional and rational motivations for the new generation of migration, the competencies that Diaspora gives back to the country of their origin and the modification of the hierarchy of financing sources due to the possibility to raise money online.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".