Fostering Entrepreneurship, Creativity and Innovation in Cities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to develop a new tool to foster entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation in cities. The tool consists of transformative dimensions, able to synthesize, assemble and embrace the notions of entrepreneurial city, creative and innovative. Then it seeks to illustrate the operation of the city model proposed taking into account 51 Cities Master Plans in Brazil. The study is exploratory and adopts a reflexive methodology. The main innovative result is the entrepreneurial city model tool which meets five essential transformative dimensions: value proposition, customers, value configurations, strategic partnerships and revenue model. The entrepreneurial city model tool proposed aims to increase the dynamics understanding of the procedural flow in the city context, from the entrepreneurial activity perspective. This process flows dynamics can be expressed in the city, for example, in the planning, implementation and actions monitoring, programs, projects and public policies directed to notions of entrepreneurial city, creative and innovative. The innovative results of this research have several practical implications, among which are: (1) public management in the city; (2) public policy makers; (3) researchers and scholars; (4) human resource professionals.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".