The formation of opportunity beliefs: overcoming ignorance and reducing doubt
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although (opportunity) beliefs are becoming increasingly recognized as fundamental to understanding entrepreneurial cognition and strategic action, little is understood about the mechanisms that are responsible for the formation and evolution of these beliefs. Introducing the mechanisms of gists, matching, and updating from philosophy's and psychology's coherence theory, we propose a theoretical framework to explain how third‐person opportunity beliefs (beliefs that one has recognized an opportunity for someone with the right knowledge and motivation) are formed and how they evolve to become first‐person opportunity beliefs (beliefs that one has recognized an opportunity for himself or herself). We conclude by examining how the model contributes to literatures ranging from entrepreneurial cognition and action, to strategic myopia and organizational attention, to opportunity recognition, discovery, and creation. Copyright © 2007 Strategic Management Society.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it