Impact of Strategic Thinking on Achievement of Entrepreneurship in Al Manaseer Group (MG)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most critical abilities that entrepreneurs of today’s business firms must have is strategic thinking (ST). Despite its role- rooted in full vision of entrepreneurial activities, especially the creation of new business projects, it has been ignored over the years in entrepreneurship (ENT) literature. This study seeks to explore if ST can promote ENT, and how with its dimensions - systems thinking (SsT), creative thinking (CT), and opportunism intelligence (OI), impacts the achievement of ENT in MG. For research purposes, a questionnaire including 26 questions was conducted. First, reliability analysis was implemented to identify and eliminate irrelevant variables. Also, the researcher used Kolmogroph - Esmirnov test to consider the normality of variables' distribution. Finally, to analyze the impact of ST and its dimension on the achievement of ENT, simple and multiple linear regressions were performed. In light of results, ST and its components has a significant positive impact on ENT achievement. The OI was the most significant positive impact. This research provides a missing gap in strategic management studies enables us to have more actual view of entrepreneurs and ENT. Directions for further research are also 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".