MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125583838

The relationship between entrepreneurial activity, the business cycle and economic openness

2014· article· en· W3125583838 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
André van Stel, Roy Thurik, Gerard Scholman

Bibliographic record

VenueScales research reports · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicItaly: Economic History and Contemporary Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness cycleOpenness to experienceLaggingEconomicsUnemploymentQuarter (Canadian coin)Macroeconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the interplay between entrepreneurial activity, the business cycle and unemployment in relation to the openness of the economy. Also, we explore to what extent the observation frequency (quarterly versus annual data) influences estimation results. Following empirical literature, we estimate a pooled VAR model of the three macro-economic variables. Using both quarterly and annual data for 19 OECD countries over the period 1998-2007, we find that in the short run (after one quarter), a country’s entrepreneurial activity is stimulated when its business cycle is lagging the world’s business cycle, whereas in the medium run (after one to two years), entrepreneurial activity is stimulated when its business cycle is leading the world’s business cycle. This suggests that a country’s business cycle position relative to the world’s cycle creates different types of entrepreneurial opportunities depending on the time horizon considered. These results apply to relatively open economies only which suggests that economic openness plays a role for entrepreneurial opportunities related to a country’s cyclical performance.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScales research reportsSame topicItaly: Economic History and Contemporary IssuesFrench-language works237,207