MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208180545 · doi:10.21818/001c.29692

A Conceptual Model of Ambiguity Attitudes for Entrepreneurship Experiments

2021· article· en· W3208180545 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Behavioral and Applied Management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInnovation Diffusion and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsAmbiguityEntrepreneurshipTerminologyConstruct (python library)Conceptual modelManagement scienceWork (physics)Conceptual frameworkKnowledge managementPsychologyComputer sciencePositive economicsSociologyEconomicsSocial scienceEngineeringLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ambiguity is central to entrepreneurship phenomena. This paper addresses how ambiguity affects decision making in general, and in entrepreneurship specifically. The work described in this paper relies on robust empirical findings from behavioral economics to construct a conceptual model of factors that influence ambiguity attitudes. The conceptual model includes a novel structure called the ambiguity profile, used to describe an ambiguous situation as perceived by the decision maker. We discuss the applications of this theory for experimental work to understand bias in financial decision making in general, and entrepreneurial financial decision making in particular. Similar or synonymous terminology from various literature is compared to encourage interdisciplinary readership and communication.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.284
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.136 · 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