MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923785814 · doi:10.5539/jel.v8n2p271

Coaches’ Perceptions and Intentions Towards Entrepreneurship

2019· article· en· W2923785814 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yeliz Eratlı Şirin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingKruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variancePsychologyDescriptive statisticsEntrepreneurshipMann–Whitney U testTest (biology)Data collectionConfidence intervalSocial psychologySelf-confidencePerceptionApplied psychologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, it was aimed to examine the entrepreneurial characteristics of the coaches in terms of demographic variables. The study was designed in a descriptive model and quantitatively.The sample consisted of a total of 130 coaches of 38 females, 92 males. “Entrepreneurship Scale” was used as data collection tool which is developed by Deveci and Çepni (2015). Data were not normal distribution. Therefore, non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis H tests were used. Descriptive statistics were also used. In the study, it was determined that coaches had middle and upper level entrepreneurship features and there were no differences in gender and level of coaching according to demographic variables. There was also a significant difference in risk taking and self-confidence subscales according to coaching years. As a result, according to demographic variables, risk taking and self-confidence are affected by the coaching year.

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207