MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessment of the Reasons for the Termination of Entrepreneurial Activity: Data for Various Countries in 2020

2021· article· en· W3216178050 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yuliya Pin'koveckaya

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Kemerovo State University Series Political Sociological and Economic sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicEntrepreneurshipCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Quarter (Canadian coin)Order (exchange)BusinessEconomicsPolitical scienceGeographyFinanceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research featured the issue of business termination. The COVID-19 pandemic hit small and medium-sized businesses all over the world. The research objective was to assess various economic indicators in order to explain why entrepreneurs had to abandon their business in 2020. The study was based on the economic and mathematical models that represent the functions of normal distribution. The author analyzed the opinions of entrepreneurs from 39 countries, who were asked to explain why they had to give up their business. The survey was part of the Global Monitoring of Entrepreneurship. The analysis revealed four indicators that determined the positive and negative reasons for the entrepreneurs to stop their business activities. The article introduces some new information about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on this process. Most entrepreneurs (56.3 %) gave up their business for some pandemic-unrelated negative reasons. A quarter of them (28 %) were forced to close their businesses due to the negative consequences of the pandemic. Only one-sixth of the participants terminated their business activities for a positive reason. Further research will assess the consequences of the pandemic in 2021.

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 score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of Kemerovo State University Series Political Sociological and Economic sciencesSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207