Contextualized indigenous entrepreneurial models: A systematic review of indigenous entrepreneurship literature
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
Abstract Governmental development strategies focus on entrepreneurship as a major resource for the economic development of indigenous peoples. While initiatives and programs are locally based, there is a debate in the academic literature about how contextual factors affect the identification of indigenous entrepreneurship. The purpose of this paper is to analyze and integrate indigenous entrepreneurship literature to identify the main indigenous entrepreneurship models. Thus, a systematic literature review was conducted. In total, 25 relevant articles were identified in selected electronic databases and manual searches of Australian Business Deans Council ranked journals from January 1, 1995 to the end of 2016. Using a systematic analysis of sociocultural contexts and locations, the paper proposed that a typology of contextualized indigenous entrepreneurship models was possible, that were classified as urban, remote and rural. The parameters of these models, and their potential theoretical and practical applications to the study and practice of indigenous entrepreneurship ecosystems were also outlined.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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