MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221128644 · doi:10.35609/jber.2022.6.4(4)

A global review of COVID-19 Assistance Program for Small Business

2022· review· en· W4221128644 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jia Qi Cheong

Bibliographic record

VenueGATR Journal of Business and Economics Review · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DigitizationNoveltyBusinessPandemicProcess (computing)Public relationsSpace (punctuation)Political scienceEconomic growthEconomicsEngineeringComputer sciencePsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective – This paper offers a review of the latest studies with regards to the impact of COVID-19 on small businesses in different countries around the world. Methodology – This paper reviewed a compilation of COVID-19 studies focusing on SMEs that was conducted between 2020 and 2022. The review enables us to understand the globally common or underlying challenges to SMEs due to COVID-19, along with an assessment of government’s initiatives that were implemented to alleviate the impact. The review revealed that the pandemic caused a major disruption for small businesses which also acts as a catalyst towards digitization and innovation towards competitiveness which is facilitated by government initiatives. The review process comprises systematic and vast-ranging search for articles related to the subjects to look for evidence, and secondly, for limit the risk of biasness. Findings – This survey of experiences elsewhere might provide insights to policymakers in countries that are struggling to cope with the problem on the initiatives to consider and the additional initiatives that might be necessary to make them effective in their individual country contexts. Novelty – Given limitations of space, we survey only a limited sample of countries from Asia and Europe, along with the US and Canada. Hopefully, their experiences will provide a broad enough spectrum of initiatives for policymakers elsewhere to consider and evaluate. Type of Paper: Review JEL Classification: M21, O38

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGATR Journal of Business and Economics ReviewSame topicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsFrench-language works237,207