Team Entrepreneurial Passion: Linking Intra- and Inter-personal Influences with Outcomes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are beginning to understand the nature and role of passion in entrepreneurship but most studies remain focused on individuals. Only recently have researchers in this area begun to consider passion as it pertains to teams, despite the likelihood that entrepreneurial decisions and actions likely occur at this level. With this study, we examine the antecedents and consequences of three types of team entrepreneurial passion (TEP) in new ventures. We employ a multi-wave, multi-level design to study 79 teams participating in an intensive accelerator programme. The results show that an individual’s entrepreneurial passion for each of innovation, founding and development is a function of a common fundamental assessment of themselves as captured in their core self-evaluation, but past experience and business education also influences certain role-related passion. TEP incorporates an assessment of the team and is a function of perceptions of person-team fit. At the team level, entrepreneurial passion also predicts business feasibility. Our study adds theoretical clarity and empirical support for the occurrence of TEP.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it