Does mentoring reduce entrepreneurial doubt? A longitudinal gendered perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Mentoring appears to be a good support practice to reduce entrepreneurial doubt, amongst other things. Although perceived similarity could foster the mentoring relationship, gender dyad composition may also influence doubt reduction for entrepreneurs because of the potential gender stereotype in entrepreneurship. Design/methodology/approach The authors performed longitudinal research based on an initial sample of 170 entrepreneurs supported by a mentor to investigate the evolution of entrepreneurial doubt. Findings This study demonstrates that doubt can be reduced with mentoring, but only temporarily for male mentees. Gender stereotypes may be at play when it comes to receiving the support of a female mentor as entrepreneurship is still, unfortunately, a “male-dominated world.” Receiving support from mentors perceived as highly similar within the dyad does not reduce entrepreneurial doubt. Trusting the mentor is an important aspect, besides gender, in reducing entrepreneurial doubt. Originality/value The research provides insights into the gendered effect of mentoring to reduce entrepreneurial doubt. It shows that gender dyad composition should be taken into consideration when studying mentoring or other similar support to entrepreneurs.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".