A legacy of attention to embeddedness in gendered institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of in this study is to examine how scholarship on women’s entrepreneurship/gender and entrepreneurship has contributed to understandings of the embeddedness of entrepreneurial activity. The authors review studies from the past four decades (1975-2018) to assess the extent to which research has examined the embeddedness of entrepreneurial activity in two key institutions – the family and the labour market – that remain pervasively and persistently gendered. Design/methodology/approach The authors blend a systematic quantitative analysis of scholarly publications with qualitative analysis, identifying key themes and contributions. The corpus of material comprises over 1,300 scholarly publications, including both empirical and theoretical contributions. Findings This analysis shows that attention to the embeddedness of entrepreneurial activity in gendered social institutions is a clear legacy of women’s entrepreneurship research. The systematic quantitative review found that over one-third (36.6 per cent) of scholarly publications examines questions of family and/or labour market embeddedness in some way. The qualitative analysis identifies a rich array of themes over the past four decades and a growing global reach of scholarship in recent years. Originality/value This paper contributes to knowledge about the embeddedness of entrepreneurial activity. It offers a comprehensive review of how entrepreneurship is shaped by the embedding of such activity in two predominant (and gendered) social institutions – families and labour markets. It will be of use to scholars seeking an overview of this topic and considering new research questions to pursue.
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 | 0.026 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".