MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125296940

Entrepreneurs and Cities: Complexity, Thickness, and Balance

2010· article· en· W3125296940 on OpenAlexaff
William C. Strange, Robert W. Helsley

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional Economics and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomies of agglomerationBalance (ability)Diversity (politics)Task (project management)Adaptation (eye)EntrepreneurshipsortEconomic geographyEconomicsBusinessIndustrial organizationMicroeconomicsComputer scienceSociologyManagementFinancePsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well-established that the thickness of large cities' markets can enhance entrepreneurial activity (Vernon (1960)). It has been more recently established that because they carry out so many different tasks, a balance of skills may be beneficial to entrepreneurs (Lazear (2004, 2005)). This paper unifies these approaches to agglomeration and entrepreneurship. It breaks from both by focusing directly on the timeliness of entrepreneurial activity. The paper's model of multidimensional task completion generates several interesting results. First, agglomeration economies arising from market thickness are reflected in shorter completion times. Second, complex projects that are infeasible in small cities may be feasible in large cities, where adaptation costs and completion times are lower. Third, it may be possible for less balanced entrepreneurs to manage successfully in large cities by substituting local market thickness for a balance of skills. Fourth, the Lazear result on the balance of entrepreneurs is shown to be related to Jacobs‟ (1969) classic result on urban diversity (city balance). Both are special cases of a more general sort of balance.

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 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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicRegional Economics and Spatial AnalysisFrench-language works237,207