Reviewing the employee spinout literature: A cross‐disciplinary approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Increasing research on spinouts highlights the key role that employees play in new business creation, knowledge diffusion, and economic development. However, this research conflicts on many points, including on definitions of key concepts. In this paper, we review the theoretical and empirical literatures on private sector employee spinouts and integrate insights spanning multiple academic disciplines. We address definitional ambiguity and propose a cross‐disciplinary conceptual framework that adequately captures the extant literature on this phenomenon. Doing so allows us to organize the selected academic articles on employee spinouts into six themes: antecedents at the individual, organizational (parent firm), and external environmental levels, and consequences of spinouts for spinout founder(s), parent firms, and external environments. For each theme, we summarize the key research questions, theories, and evidence to date, and refer to potential integration points that could help to expand our knowledge. We conclude our review of each major theme with targeted suggestions for future research.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it