MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976204875 · doi:10.1142/s1084946719500146

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN VENTURE FINANCING: A STUDY AMONG CANADIAN AND US ENTREPRENEURS

2019· article· en· W2976204875 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yves Robichaud, Jean‐Charles Cachon, Egbert McGraw

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Developmental Entrepreneurship · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MonctonLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFemale entrepreneursEntrepreneurshipVenture capitalWomen entrepreneursDemographic economicsLoanFinanceDebtPerceptionFace (sociological concept)BusinessEmpirical researchSample (material)New VenturesStart upEconomicsBusiness administrationPsychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Entrepreneurship contributes significantly to economic growth and female entrepreneurs are strongly involved because their economic contribution is steadily increasing. However, research also reveals that female entrepreneurs face more financial barriers when compared to their male counterparts. Therefore, it is of prime importance to understand better female entrepreneurs’ behavior regarding financing. The purpose of this research was to explore gender differences related to financing with an intention to uncover why such differences exist. An empirical study involving a sample of 946 entrepreneurs from Canada and the United States was conducted to examine the issue. Results revealed that female entrepreneurs start their ventures with less capital than males, have a lesser tendency than males to obtain a bank loan and have a perception of being more in debt than their male counterparts are. Moreover, both variables depicting the smaller size of female-owned ventures and the intrinsic motivations expressed by female entrepreneurs acted as explanatory factors for the lower proportion of bank loans in the case of female-owned venture startups.

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)0.002
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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Developmental EntrepreneurshipSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207