The Role of Context in Shaping Students Entrepreneurial Intentions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of contextual variables on entrepreneurial intentions. Design/Methodology/Approach:We searched for articles in the EBSCO, ProQuest, and Web of Science databases.To maintain quality standards, we select only empirical impact studies published in peer reviewed journal.We passed through all articles which worked on context variables as antecedents in entrepreneurship research (Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Journal of Business Venturing, Journal of Small Business Management, Small Business Economics, Journal of Applied Psychology, International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, and Gender, Work & Organization). Findings :The findings indicate that few research were conducted on the entrepreneurship education, culture, institutions, socio-economic variables, locus of control, demographic, and technology.The findings strongly support that the context play a significant role in configuration of entrepreneurial intentions. Research LimitationsTheoretical Implications: While many studies on entrepreneurship education were conducted, but none of the article worked on the role of context pay in configuration of entrepreneurial intentions using a systematic review.Research Perspective: There is a need of conducting more research on the impact of contextual factors on entrepreneurial intentions comparing developed and developing countries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".