MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W291830075

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: United Kingdom 2004

2004· article· en· W291830075 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rebecca Harding

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipKingdomPolitical scienceEconomic growthBusinessEconomicsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various entrepreneurial factors relevant to theUnited Kingdom are examined in this Global Entrepreneurship Monitor report for2004. The report is divided into ten sections: an economic and policy overview;a summary of entrepreneurial activities in the UK, USA, France, Germany, Italy,Canada, and Japan; an overall view of UK entrepreneurship in 2004; adescription of the geography of entrepreneurship; information about thedemographic characteristics of people engaged in entrepreneurship; the types ofentrepreneurial businesses that exist in the UK; the impact of entrepreneurshipon the UK; access to finance for entrepreneurial endeavors; an examination ofthe entrepreneurial culture in the UK; and an overall summary of the reportwith policy conclusions. Total entrepreneurial activity (TEA) in the United Kingdom has remained at6.3 percentof the adult population for 2004, which is similar to thefigure in 2003. Compared to the other seven countries examined, a stability ofentrepreneurial activity in the UK exists that lacks in the other countries,indicated by a general increase in entrepreneurial activity, particularly amongwomen. Overall, the attitudes toward entrepreneurship and individual confidenceand perceptions of opportunity have shown improvement in the United Kingdom.(JSD)

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations90
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207