MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2615668552

Slovenian Companies and Characteristics of Start-up Ecosystem: Slovenian Entrepreneurship Observatory 2015

2016· article· en· W2615668552 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dijana Močnik, Matej Rus, Miroslav Rebernik, Karin Širec

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Maribor Press · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipBusinessQuarter (Canadian coin)Start upOrder (exchange)FinanceBusiness administrationGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this monograph, we first analysed all companies and entrepreneurs in Slovenia in 2014; then, for 2012, we compared the critical data for companies from the EU-28 and Slovenia in the non-financial business sector (activities of industry, trade and services). In Slovenia in 2014, 63,590 companies (almost 4% more than in the previous year) and 67,500 entrepreneurs (3% less than the previous year) − totalling 131,090 enterprises − employed more than 526,000 people. More than one quarter of enterprises in the non-financial business sector in the EU-28 in 2012 operated in distributive trades (motor trades, wholesale trade and retail trade). This activity also employed the most people (i.e., one quarter). In order to learn more about Slovenian start-up companies, the start-up ecosystem and the key challenges for improvements, we analysed the characteristics of Slovenian start-up companies and the start-up ecosystem. We employed primary data from 156 start-up companies, whose average age was 2.1 years, included in the research study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Maribor PressSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207