MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910994413 · doi:10.2478/mjss-2019-0014

Entrepreneurial Motives in Two Emerging Economies: A Comparison between Urban Mexico and Morocco

2019· article· en· W2910994413 on OpenAlexaff
Yves Robichaud, Jean‐Charles Cachon, Abdellatif Taghzouti, Abdelouahid Assaidi, José Codina

Bibliographic record

VenueMediterranean Journal of Social Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Ethnicity, and Economy
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatin AmericansAutonomyIndependence (probability theory)EntrepreneurshipSample (material)Order (exchange)Financial independenceEmerging marketsDemographic economicsEconomic growthDeveloping countryBusinessPolitical scienceEconomyEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This research tried to identify similarities and differences in motives between male urban entrepreneurs from Mexico and Morocco. The Mexican sample of 192 respondents was drawn from Chambers of Commerce listings in Guadalajara and Monterrey. The Moroccan sample of 222 respondents came from the Fès-Meknès region. In both countries a majority of entrepreneurs went into business by necessity and pursued monetary goals in order to secure their financial future for their families and for themselves. Larger cohorts of younger entrepreneurs were present in Mexico, where female spouses tended to be more often involved in their husband’s business and contributing more to family income, as compared to Morocco. In Mexico, a larger proportion of entrepreneurs were also expressing a very strong interest for intrinsic goals involving self-actualization, meeting challenges, while Moroccan respondents were more in search for autonomy and independence besides pursuing extrinsic or financial goals. Results generally confirm results obtained elsewhere in Africa and Latin America.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMediterranean Journal of Social SciencesSame topicMigration, Ethnicity, and EconomyFrench-language works237,207