Effects of Relational Capital and Commitment on Venture Capitalists' Perception of Portfolio Company Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is an attempt to explain how therelationship between a venture capital firm (VCF) and its portfolio companies(PFCs) affects the VCF's perception of PFC performance. A discussion ofrelational capital and the relationship between trust and perceived performanceleads to the formulation of several hypotheses. These hypotheses predict thatVCFs' perception of PFC performance will be positively related to the degree towhich the VCF and PFC trust each other, interact socially, and share goals.Finally, VCFs' commitment to a PFC is expected to improve the VCF's perceptionsof PFC performance. Data from a 2002 survey of 298 U.S. venture capital firms are used to testthe hypotheses. Supplemented by interviews with several venture capitalists,the data indicate that relational capital and VCF commitment to the PFC doindeed contribute to VCFs' perceptions of PFC performance. Trust, socialinteraction, goal congruence, and VCF commitment all contribute uniquely toperceptions of PFC performance. (SAA)
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".