(In)visibility in the margins: COVID-19, women entrepreneurs and the need for inclusive recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to extend Lewis and Simpson’s (2010) work on the complexity of (in)visibility and explores what it means to women’s entrepreneurship in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design/methodology/approach This piece contributes to the special issue on COVID-19 and the impact on women entrepreneurs. Specifically, it applies an (in)visibility lens to argue that responses to COVID-19 in Canada negatively affect women entrepreneurs disproportionately and that while initiatives such as the Women Entrepreneurship Knowledge Hub (WEKH) are threatened, they can also serve as an agitator during this time to advocate for an inclusive recovery approach. Findings Despite progress through such government funded initiatives as the Women Entrepreneurship Strategy (WES), which is targeting more than $2bn (Cdn) in investments towards women entrepreneurs, structural inequality and the (in)visibility of women’s entrepreneurship has been amplified during COVID-19. Through a particular understanding of the (in)visibility vortex notion (Lewis and Simpson, 2010), it is concluded the (in)visibility of women entrepreneurs as deeply embedded and that there is a continued need to advocate for a gender and diversity lens, to ensure inclusive recovery that benefits women and diverse entrepreneurs. Originality/value An (in)visibility lens brings an important addition to the literature on women’s entrepreneurship, as well as illuminates the important differences within this broad category, deepening the understanding of these trends and their impact during COVID-19 pandemic. It highlights how the complexities of intersectionality are critical to understand, and their recognition can help to drive a clear evidence base, as well as advocacy. The piece call researchers and practitioners alike to consider the question under COVID-19, will these conditions create a new vortex in this domain, or can the work of organizations and researchers position gender and intersectionality in women entrepreneurship as a disrupter for the future?
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".