MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921166351 · doi:10.1108/et-06-2018-0139

Profiles of entrepreneurship students: implications for policy and practice

2019· article· en· W2921166351 on OpenAlexaffabout
Creso M. Sá, Christopher Holt

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation + Training · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipExperiential learningOriginalityValue (mathematics)Government (linguistics)Public relationsSet (abstract data type)SociologyPedagogyPsychologyMarketingQualitative researchPolitical scienceBusinessSocial scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose While much research seeks to determine the impacts of entrepreneurship education on students, far less attention has been paid to students’ motivations and interests. Understanding students’ perspectives is useful, particularly as governments support the expansion of campus entrepreneurship. The purpose of this paper is to develop a deeper understanding of students’ reasoning in relation to pursuing entrepreneurship education. Design/methodology/approach Specifically, the key questions driving this study were: Why do students join experiential learning entrepreneurship programs? How do they define their goals for entrepreneurship education, and what outcomes do they value? Data were collected through interviews with 38 students participating in a range of experiential entrepreneurship programs in Ontario. Findings Four different patterns in students’ reasoning and sense making emerged from the analysis. First, “venture creators” are the prototypical student entrepreneurs who are set on creating and launching a venture. Second, “experience seekers” aim at gaining practical work experience but do not see themselves as nor intend to become entrepreneurs. Third, “explorers” aim at developing familiarity with basic concepts and opportunities in entrepreneurship, as a means to consider whether this is an attractive career option. Finally, “engagers” are actively experimenting with entrepreneurship as they gauge their “fit” and potential as entrepreneurs. Originality/value This study’s findings provide an empirically grounded check on the assumptions guiding government policy for entrepreneurship education and institutional practice. Policy and institutional attention is overly focused on venture creation, even as other outcomes are commonly espoused. Recognizing different profiles of entrepreneurship students may lead to more purposefully designed programs that have different objectives, and help distinct segments of students achieve their goals.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 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

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducation + TrainingSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207