MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090409201 · doi:10.1108/md-11-2016-0791

Consensus on the definition of social entrepreneurship: a content analysis approach

2020· article· en· W3090409201 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Decision · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial entrepreneurshipLegitimacyEntrepreneurshipField (mathematics)Value (mathematics)Content analysisKnowledge managementProcess (computing)SociologyPublic relationsMarketingSustainabilityBusinessPolitical scienceComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This study aims to reach academic consensus on key factors and boundaries used in defining the concepts of “social entrepreneurship” (SEsh), “social entrepreneur” (SE), and “social enterprise” (SEV). This study also explores the complex relationships among social/business enterprises, definitional categories and factors, missions, and impacts on effectiveness of practices and organizing for venture success. Design/methodology/approach Content analysis is conducted on articles published from 1998 to 2016 in peer-reviewed academic journals in the fields of management and organization. Furthermore, 80 articles are obtained and analyzed in terms of factors and frequently used terms for unified definitions and their intertwined linkages. Findings The unifying factors for the definitions of SEsh, SE, and SEV include primary mission and processes and resources. Strong linkages are observed between SEsh and actors, SE and characteristics, and SEV and organizational form. Results indicate that definitional categories and factors share numerous joint terms that can be used to propose unified definitions. This study identifies the effective interactions of variables among social mission, capabilities to manage resources and processes, entrepreneurial characteristics of actors, and forms of ventures in a process that provides potential for organizational sustainability and impact maximization. Research limitations/implications This paper contributes to research by identifying clear and agreed-upon factors and traits as boundaries to propose definitions that can advance the legitimacy of social entrepreneurship as an academic field worthy of future exploration. Practical implications The findings emphasize social mission that achieves public benefits while preventing mission drift. Economic value and choice of organizational form can advance the fulfillment of objectives and governance practices. This study also presents the key influencing factors at various stages of an entrepreneurial process to determine how these concepts interact to increase the likelihood of organizational emergence and survival. Originality/value This work is the first to systematically review management and organizational literature on the key factors and terms that constitute the distinct definitions of SEsh, SE, and SEV and help clarify their complex relations in an entrepreneurial process.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.138 · 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