MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3132973704 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2021.1.022

Dominant determinant characteristics of innovative behavior of new entrepreneur candidates

2021· article· en· W3132973704 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Iffah Budiningsih, Heri Sukamto, Sari Mujiani

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityCompetence (human resources)PsychologyLiteracyVariable (mathematics)VariablesEntrepreneurshipSocial psychologyEconomicsPedagogyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the global competition era and in Covid 19 pandemic period, the innovative competence of emerging entrepreneurs relies on the positive characters they should have. The present study was aimed to formulate a reinforcement model of innovative behavior through the identification of dominant determinant factors. The study employed survey methods and involved variables of innovative behavior (Y), creativity (X1), technology literacy (X2), and risk-taking behavior (X3). The respondents were 86 final year students of Faculty of Business Economics (emerging entrepreneur candidates) as the samples, and the data were further analyzed by multiple regression. The creativity (X1), technology literacy (X2), and risk-taking behavior (X3) contribute simultaneously at 45.70 percent to the development of innovative behavior (Y); b) the applicable prediction model of innovative behavior is Y=1.171+0.622X1+0.170X2 -0.080X3; meanwhile, the creativity yielded the most significant sensitivity in developing the innovative behavior variable compared to the technology literacy and risk-taking behavior variables; c) it is worth noting that risk-taking behavior is not among the contributing factors; in fact, this variable constrains an individual to be innovative (if it is too high); e) the variable of creativity is in line with innovation.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207