MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Socio-economic causals for entrepreneurial transformation

2023· article· en· W4361282705 on OpenAlexaff
Noman Arshed, Osama Aziz, Rana Zamin Abbas, Maryam Batool

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal on Innovation and Sustainability RISUS · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipOpenness to experiencePanel dataCorporate governanceHuman capitalEstimationBusinessEconomic systemEconomicsIndustrial organizationEconomic geographyEconomic growthEconometricsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Entrepreneurship has become vital for national growth. Therefore, it is essential to explore the factors that enhance entrepreneurial transformation. The literature identifies two main driving forces behind entrepreneurship: necessity and opportunity, which react differently to the socio-economic factors. This study explores the socio-economic determinants of necessity-based entrepreneurship and opportunity-based entrepreneurship. Here the yearly data of 108 countries from 2009 to 2017 is used to formulate a panel data model. Data on entrepreneurship is taken from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). HDI is used as a surrogate measure of socio-economic factors along with several control variables like cost of doing business, economic factors, governance factors and perception factors. Panel Feasible Generalized Least Squares (FGLS) estimation technique accounts for spatial heterogeneity. The panel data estimation shows that human capital improvement enhances the opportunities for entrepreneurial transformation while decreasing necessity-based entrepreneurship due to higher job creation. The findings also suggest that improvement in governance, perceived opportunities, openness, and culture are vital for enhancing opportunity-driven entrepreneurship.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal on Innovation and Sustainability RISUSSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207