Does the crowd mean business? An analysis of rewards-based crowdfunding as a source of finance for start-ups and small businesses
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the extent to which rewards-based crowdfunding really does provide financial support for start-ups and small businesses relative to other types of activity such as creative and cultural projects. Design/methodology/approach The paper reports findings from a series of multiple regression on a unique data set covering around 205,000 rewards-based crowdfunding projects across a number of leading platforms in the USA, the UK and Canada. Findings The authors report two main findings. First, rewards-based crowdfunding is highly inequitably distributed and that success is concentrated within a relatively small number of platforms and campaigns. Second, crowdfunding campaigns explicitly related to business perform relatively poorly compared with those in other categories; particularly those in creative areas such as music and dance. Originality/value These findings call into question the extent to which rewards-based crowdfunding really is a means by which significant numbers of start-ups can bridge gaps in the provision of finance.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it