MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990452979 · doi:10.1108/ijebr-03-2019-0185

Greater fit and a greater gap

2020· article· en· W2990452979 on OpenAlexaff
Steven A. Brieger, Dirk De Clercq, Jolanda Hessels, Christian Pfeifer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtant taxonOriginalityEntrepreneurshipLife satisfactionValue (mathematics)Profit (economics)BusinessSample (material)MarketingPsychologyEconomicsSocial psychologyMicroeconomicsCreativityFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand how national institutional environments contribute to differences in life satisfaction between entrepreneurs and employees. Design/methodology/approach Leveraging person–environment fit and institutional theories and using a sample of more than 70,000 entrepreneurs and employees from 43 countries, the study investigates how the impact of entrepreneurial activity on life satisfaction differs in various environmental contexts. An entrepreneur’s life satisfaction arguably should increase when a high degree of compatibility or fit exists between his or her choice to be an entrepreneur and the informal and formal institutional environment. Findings The study finds that differences in life satisfaction between entrepreneurs and employees are larger in countries with high power distance, low uncertainty avoidance, extant entrepreneurship policies, low commercial profit taxes and low worker rights. Originality/value This study sheds new light on how entrepreneurial activity affects life satisfaction, contingent on the informal and formal institutions in a country that support entrepreneurship by its residents.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & ResearchSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207