Role of Educational Institutions in Influencing Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of entrepreneurial intention has been an emerging research agenda in the field of entrepreneurship since the 1990s. This field is appealing for researchers since it offers the opportunity to analyze entrepreneurial intention in the context of a different theoretical framework that can be used by developing and developed countries to improve their economies. The study has the purpose to conduct a scoping review of existing literature on entrepreneurial intentions. It aimed to spot research gaps in the existing literature without conducting an exhaustive review. One such gap was the inadequate use of existing theories to facilitate the development of entrepreneurial pedagogy. The other identified research gap was that no scholar has explained how external factors, such as education, financial support, and culture, affect entrepreneurial intentions and how these intentions can be explored from a theoretical perspective. Furthermore, scholars also failed to elaborate on which study materials should be used by educational institutions in order to improve enterprising expectations among students. Thus, it is recommended that future scholars should explore the above-mentioned research gaps so policymakers may use their findings to develop a mechanism that would facilitate the development of entrepreneurial intentions.Keywords: entrepreneurial event theory (EET), entrepreneurial intention, personality traits, educational institutions, theory of planned behaviour (TPB), scoping review
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 | 0.013 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".