Cultural Entrepreneurship Beyond ""Entrepreneurship"": Four Domains of Inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Culture is widely agreed to be critical for a range of innovative and entrepreneurial processes, and the notion of “cultural entrepreneurship” is gaining currency to investigate how entrepreneurial actors make innovative courses of action amenable to others. However, early work on the topic has largely remained confined to the study of new venture legitimation or resource acquisition, offering a relatively narrow understanding of “entrepreneurship.” More recently, a growing body of work has begun to illustrate how culture additionally pervades other entrepreneurial phenomena in a wide variety of empirical settings, suggesting a need to broaden the scope of what cultural entrepreneurship can explain. The primary goal of this symposium is to spur a more encompassing agenda for research at the intersection of culture, entrepreneurship, and innovation. A panel of five distinguished speakers will first review how the landscape of “cultural entrepreneurship” has evolved, and then discuss future research avenues in four distinct domains of inquiry.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".