Resolution Provisions; Growth Provisions - Identification of Rights and Responsibilities of Participants in Entrepreneurship including Allocation of Risks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
WAGER: Silvy, yes, we are going to do this a little differently.Rather than having Gail and I present for 30 minutes each, on the entity choice issues, allocations, responsibilities and the prospectus on the American-Canadian side, we thought it would be interesting and more engaging if we presented on an interactive basis.We also wanted to step back and talk about some of the underpinnings of the policies and laws as they relate to entrepreneurship.I did not realize, however, at the time we made that decision, that we would be following a distinguished panel, and, in a sense, we would be trying to enhance on observations of entrepreneurship after David Morgenthaler had made his presentation, but we will do the best we can.When talking about the context for creating entrepreneurship, we ask the fundamental questions about what is, or who is, the entrepreneur, and what are the political, economic, and social environments in which entrepreneurs are grown.Certainly, we embrace and celebrate the entrepreneur in American popular culture.However, I think David Morgenthaler said that was not always the case.I think he said early in his career that someone said that he was an entrepreneur, perhaps, because he could not hold a job.Today that is certainly not the case.From an academic perspective, and from the perspective of those of us that practice in the field of corporate law and, certainly, in the business world, entrepreneurs are, in fact, celebrated for not only the product of their labors but the way they engage in the world.They are, if you will, the Evangelistic indigenous growth in America, and I expect the same in Canada.In historical and geopolitical laws, American capitalism has already been the counterpoint to centralized economies, which raises cross border questions of why entrepreneurs do not thrive in other types of economies.It is clearly accepted wisdom that entrepreneurial activity equates to economic growth over the long-term.But it raises some chicken and egg [Vol.33 No. 11
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".