Why do People Refuse Entrepreneurship and How to Improve Entrepreneurial Education?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to measure entrepreneurial intentions with a clear timeframe for the intended behavior, thus going beyond a simple measure of attitude. It then looks at those who refuse the idea of becoming entrepreneurs to understand why This is something the literature on entrepreneurship has ignored so far. Samples were collected in 2018 from final year university students in Portugal. Data shows that trusting one’s own skills, valuing own job creation, valuing being one’s own boss and valuing the independence associated with being an entrepreneur does contribute to student’s willingness to become entrepreneurs. The results provide some important lessons for entrepreneurial education programs, as people who say no to entrepreneurship: › are less motivated to career factors and more worried about life quality factors; › see harder obstacles to creating startups; › trust less in their entrepreneurial skills. Implications for theory and practice are proposed, as these results can be used to improve entrepreneurial education. This new view on potential entrepreneurs’ individual choices is presented as an advancement to the theory and to our present understanding of entrepreneurship.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".