MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122575852 · doi:10.5539/jms.v5n4p44

Institutions, Entrepreneurship, and Post-Soviet Development: An Assessment of Moldova’s Entrepreneurial Climate (1991-2009)

2015· article· en· W3122575852 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Olga Nicoara

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management and Sustainability · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRussia and Soviet political economy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMercatus Center, George Mason UniversityMaterials and Energy Research CenterGeorge Mason University
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipContext (archaeology)SocialismEconomicsInstitutional economicsDe factoUnderdevelopmentEconomic systemPolitical scienceEconomic growthNeoclassical economicsPoliticsCommunismLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the relation between Moldova’s institutions, entrepreneurship, and poor economic performance 18 years after socialism. The prevailing local institutions determine the direction of entrepreneurship in society (North, 1990; Baumol, 1990; Olson, 1996; Boettke, 1998). Societies with a mix of institutions favorable to productive entrepreneurship experience sustained growth. Conversely, societies with institutions rewarding unproductive and destructive entrepreneurship experience economic stagnation. Using the conceptual frameworks of new institutional economics, Austrian market process theory, and interviews with local entrepreneurs, I explore the link between Moldova’s institutional context and the local entrepreneurship and underdevelopment. For a better understanding of Moldova’s poor economic performance after socialism, scholars and policy makers must investigate the existing underlying gap between the de jure and the de facto institutional barriers to productive entrepreneurship.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management and SustainabilitySame topicRussia and Soviet political economyFrench-language works237,207