MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293496077 · doi:10.1177/23409444221118097

Business for peace: How entrepreneuring contributes to Sustainable Development Goal 16

2022· article· en· W4293496077 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Peter Jack Gallo, Santiago Sosa, Andrés Vélez‐Calle

Bibliographic record

VenueBRQ Business Research Quarterly · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFlannery O'Connor and Thomas Merton
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsPeacebuildingEntrepreneurshipContext (archaeology)PovertyStatus quoEconomic growthPolitical sciencePublic relationsEconomic systemEconomicsPublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine entrepreneurial ventures in a post-conflict context to identify practices that are helpful for companies operating in conflict zones while contributing to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 16 (SDG 16)—Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions. Using emancipatory entrepreneuring as our theoretical lens, we analyze entrepreneurial ventures where ex-combatants seek to create economic opportunities and challenge the status quo of violence, poverty, and inequality in their rural communities. We develop four qualitative case studies of ex-combatant entrepreneurship to identify the activities that enable them to grow their businesses while promoting peace. We identify actor distance and entrepreneurial stage as key dimensions for defining a matrix of relationship arrangements that facilitate venture success and peacebuilding efforts. We conclude with a summary of our contributions and implications for research and practice. JEL Classifications: D63, D74, H56, L14, L26

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.014
Scholarly communication0.0130.009
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations23
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBRQ Business Research QuarterlySame topicFlannery O'Connor and Thomas MertonFrench-language works237,207