Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an exploration of Women’s Entrepreneurship in Canada, this project seeks to re-examine the commonplace of the male as the prime entrepreneurial role model while uncovering the experience and potential of women entrepreneurs for the expansion of economic growth and social impact. My research demonstrates that women entrepreneurs not only have the potential to negotiate between two complex entrepreneurial systems to reveal a middle ground, but very likely have been leaders in developing a vision of Canadian society wherein businesses do not act in conflict with the good of the people, but rather, in concert with it. I derived this knowledge by adapting a qualitative and design research method known as the Double Diamond design model (Design Council, 2005). This method emphasizes empathetic ‘problem finding,’ rather than comparisons with men in the field, to uncover a broad range of issues surrounding women’s entrepreneurship. As a design method, Double Diamond includes an iterative ‘problem solving’ process that delivers ideas for interventions to improve women entrepreneurs’ experience and impact. \nMy literature review unwraps the dichotomy of approaches held by researchers to studying and measuring women entrepreneurs’ impact on the Canadian economy and society. \nIn Methodology, I describe my research approach, framed by the Double Diamond’s four distinct phases: Discover, Define, Develop and Deliver. I incorporate additional design methods in each phase—expert interviews, journey mapping, stakeholder mapping, affinity diagramming and sequence modeling—to organize, understand, and suggest the \nclearest ways to communicate what I learn. This leads to the observations and insights found in Findings, where a synthesis of takeaways is followed by design-derived recommendations for advancement women’s entrepreneurship and the study thereof. The project concludes with a reflection on the inquiry process and implications of the study for general entrepreneurship literature and the overall value for aspiring women entrepreneurs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".