Commentary on the Multidimensional Degree of Family Influence Construct and the F-Pec Measurement Instrument
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Family Influence on Power, Experience, and Culture (F-PEC) measurement scale created in the Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice article by Kelin, Astrachan, and Smyrnios (2005) is critiqued.The purpose is to provide feedback regarding the methodology of future research in order to establish further the validity and reliability of the scale, and provide theoretical directions for areas of future research. Several methodological issues are presented.Face validity and content validity are discussed, including issues of these forms of validity among the dimensions of the F-PEC scale.Convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity are also examined and suggestions for strengthening these forms of validity are provided.Internal consistency of the F-PEC is strong; however, possible explanations and limitations that may have contributed to these findings are provided.Interrater and test-retest reliability are addressed, as are several theoretical considerations.An effort is made to redefine family influence as either an independent or dependent variable.The dimensions of power, experience, and culture could be redefined as independent, dependent, or moderating variables within the study. The strengths and weaknesses of the research are discussed, and areas for future research. (AKP)
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".