MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790973645 · doi:10.1177/0266242617748201

Country-level determinants and consequences of overconfidence in the ambitious entrepreneurship segment

2018· article· en· W2790973645 on OpenAlexaff
Jerzy Cieślik, Eugène Kaciak, André van Stel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Small Business Journal Researching Entrepreneurship · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipOverconfidence effectConstruct (python library)ProsperityEuropean unionEconomicsArgument (complex analysis)Demographic economicsEconomic growthInternational economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Countries vary widely and systematically in the extent to which the ambitions of their entrepreneurs differ from their realisations. We label this discrepancy entrepreneurial overconfidence (EOC). Although a certain level of EOC may be beneficial for an economy, we provide empirical support for the argument that if entrepreneurial ambitions substantially and systematically exceed realisations, this may be at the cost of economic and societal prosperity. Therefore, we need to know more about country levels of EOC and their determinants, particularly with respect to the growth-oriented segment of entrepreneurship. Combining data on entrepreneurial ambitions from Global Entrepreneurship Monitor and data on realisations from Eurostat, we construct a measure of EOC at the country level and correlate its variation across 23 European Union (EU) countries over the period 2004–2015 with a set of economic and cultural factors. Among other findings, our results show that ambitions exceed realisations in almost all countries, but that this discrepancy is significantly greater for new member countries entering the EU since 2004. Policy implications of our results are discussed, particularly for promoting ambitious entrepreneurship in countries at the intermediate development stage.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

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

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Small Business Journal Researching EntrepreneurshipSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207