MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755860067 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v7n6p16

On the Term “Entrepreneur” and the Conceptualization of Entrepreneurship in the Literature of Classical Economics

2017· article· en· W2755860067 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Petur O. Jonsson

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Theory and Institutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKingston UniversityNorth Carolina State University
KeywordsConceptualizationEntrepreneurshipDialecticTerm (time)Context (archaeology)Positive economicsEconomicsCreativityNeoclassical economicsPresentation (obstetrics)Economic ThoughtSociologyEpistemologyClassical economicsPsychologySocial psychologyPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some of the literature on entrepreneurship suggests that the term entrepreneur was first introduced by either Cantillon or Say during the industrial revolution in the 18th and early 19th centuries. This article, by contrast, shows the term and the concept to be far older. Moreover, before the introduction of the term entrepreneur into English, the literature had a variety of other, and in some respect more nuanced, terms for entrepreneurs. Moreover, the article suggests that present-day scholars tend to misread both the pre-classical and the classical economists on the role of entrepreneurial initiative and creativity in the economy and that this has affected the conceptualization of the term in the current literature. In particular, Say’s classical presentation of the entrepreneurial process was, in essence, dialectical and thus his ideas on entrepreneurship cannot be presented properly in the context of the modern-day equilibrium based models of today’s economics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicEconomic Theory and InstitutionsFrench-language works237,207