Bibliographic record
Abstract
Citation (2013), "List of Contributors", Entrepreneurial Resourcefulness: Competing With Constraints (Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, Vol. 15), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. vii-viii. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1074-7540(2013)0000015002 Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing Limited Copyright © 2013 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Pia Arenius Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland Ted Baker North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA James M. Bloodgood Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA Kevin D. Clark School of Business, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA Andrew C. Corbett Babson College, Babson Park, MA, USA Thomas D. Craig Fox School of Business, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA Gustav Hägg Lund University, Skåne Län, Sweden Howard Haines University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA James C. Hayton University of Warwick, Coventry, UK Benson Honig McMaster University, Ontario, Canada Jeffrey S. Hornsby University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA Tomas Karlsson Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden Jerome A. Katz Cook School of Business, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA Patrick G. Maggitti School of Business, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA Juhana Peltonen School of Science, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland Timothy G. Pollock The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA Mikko Rönkkö School of Science, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland Harry J. Sapienza University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA David Townsend North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC USA Friederike Welter IFM Bonn & Universität Siegen, Bonn, Germany Mirela Xheneti University of Sussex, Brighton, UK Book Chapters Entrepreneurial Resourcefulness: Competing with Constraints Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth Entrepreneurial Resourcefulness: Competing with Constraints Copyright Page List of Contributors Entrepreneurial Resourcefulness: Competing with Constraints Winning an Unfair Game: How a Resource-Constrained Player Uses Bricolage to Maneuver for Advantage in a Highly Institutionalized Field Selective or Parallel? Toward Measuring the Domains of Entrepreneurial Bricolage The Blessing of Necessity and Advantages of Newness Self-Doubt and Entrepreneurial Persistence: How Founders of High-Growth Ventures Overcome Cognitive Constraints on Growth and Persist with their Ventures Organizational Resourcefulness: The Role of Purposeful Resource Focus Vacillation in Implementing Corporate Entrepreneurship Reenacting Contextual Boundaries – Entrepreneurial Resourcefulness in Challenging Environments Knowledge Flows and Constraints to the Entrepreneurial Process
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 | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.737 | 0.734 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".