MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999451814 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v13n1p40

Addressing the Need for a Proper Legal Environment to Support Entrepreneurship in Saudi Arabia

2020· article· en· W2999451814 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hussam Ibrahim Fallatah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUmm Al-Qura University
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipBusiness environmentContext (archaeology)BusinessDeveloping countryWork (physics)Working environmentPublic relationsPolitical scienceEconomic growthEngineeringEconomicsGeographyBusiness administrationFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many studies have discussed the impact of entrepreneurial environment on the economies of developed countries. In this context, the legal environment, has been given attention. However, in developing countries, research in this area is insufficient. Furthermore, the few researchers who have discussed the legal environment in the context of the entrepreneurial environment have focused on how the legal environment affects business in general, but not entrepreneurship (Bruyat & Julien, 2001). This paper will explore the need for a proper legal environment to support entrepreneurship in Saudi Arabia. It will examine the suitability of the current legal environment for developing entrepreneurship, and it will identify weaknesses and gaps. For this research, quantitative methods were used to collect the opinions of practitioners working in the field. Finally, based on the findings, a proposed suggestion that fits the requirements of a proper legal environment for entrepreneurship in Saudi Arabia will be suggested.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207