Oppression, Entrepreneurship, and Emancipation: types of entrepreneurs and emancipatory outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Entrepreneurship-as-emancipation has been integral in illuminating the wide-ranging impacts of entrepreneurial activity. However, despite recent advancement in the literature concerning the emancipatory potential of entrepreneurship, the scholarship in the domain has not grown as expected. We posit that one reason for the limited advancement of scholarship in this domain is the lack of understanding of how emancipation differs across different kinds of ventures and types of entrepreneurs. Any potential variations in the emancipatory outcomes of entrepreneurial activity have either been ignored or, at best, passively acknowledged. This is surprising, given that the literature has also pointed out that different entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial ventures may experience/lead to different outcomes of entrepreneuring. In this paper, we build on the broader entrepreneurship literature to further unpack the notion of entrepreneurship-as-emancipation. Specifically, we theorize the emancipatory outcomes of entrepreneuring along a two-dimensional framework, with the type of entrepreneur (mainstream or marginalized) along the x-axis, and the type of the entrepreneurial venture (social or commercial) along the y-axis. We argue that different venture and entrepreneur combinations may result in different forms of emancipation. Therefore, we contribute to the literature on entrepreneurship-as-emancipation by presenting a clearer view of emancipatory outcomes. We also explain how three ecosystem elements, mostly absent from the mainstream entrepreneurship literature, might be essential in explaining the different emancipatory outcomes for different entrepreneur – venture combinations. We expect that our typology will facilitate the proliferation of research in the domain. We further anticipate that these three ecosystem elements will be taken into more serious consideration in entrepreneurship research.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".