MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2895350801 · doi:10.22215/etd/2014-10281

How High-Technology Female Entrepreneurs Perceive and Overcome Startup Challenges

2014· dissertation· en· W2895350801 on OpenAlexaffabout
Afaf Alzahrani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipFemale entrepreneursPublic relationsBusinessWomen entrepreneursMarketingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research investigates the problems and challenges facing high-technology female entrepreneurs in Canada.After an extensive literature review on entrepreneurial challenges and means to overcome them, five Ottawa-based women technology entrepreneurs were interviewed to find out how they perceive these challenges.The findings show that they considered the most important challenges as the lack of technologically innovative business ideas, the lack of sufficient business network, and the lack of business and management skills.The study contributes to the entrepreneurship literature by suggesting that these external challenges to female technology entrepreneurship are more essential than internal factors including family obligations, the lack of motivation, or the difficulty of overcoming previous bad experiences.The findings suggest that aspiring female technology entrepreneurs should partner with entrepreneurial support organizations such as 'Lead to Win for Women' and academic educational programs such as Carleton University's TIM program to get better technological ideas and business advice.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences→French-language works237,207→