Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, 2021 saw a growing interest in starting own business: as per the Census Bureau's Business Formation Statistics, the number of applications to form new businesses filed in the U.S. was the highest compared to any other year on record, reaching the total of 5.4 million (Economic Innovation Group, 2022), while in the EU, after an initial downward trend recorded in the first and second quarters of 2020, the number of new business registrations grew again in the third quarter of that year, and this upward trend continued throughout 2021 (Eurostat, 2022). Of course, as a result of Russia's invasion on Ukraine and related economic crisis, a downward tendency could be observed, but business registration levels in the EU in the first quarter of 2022 were still higher than during the pre-COVID 19 pandemic period (2015–2019) (Eurostat, 2022) and online searches indicating and intent to open a business spiked by 76% from 2018 to 2022 (Search Engine Journal, 2022). This shows that despite many external impediments, people are still tempted to start their own business, and many influencers, motivational speakers and coaches, as well as various popular TV shows broadcast worldwide (like the Apprentice, Dragons’ Den, Shark Tank or Planet of the Apps) encourage them to do so. Becoming an entrepreneur has become a goal many people, especially 20-, 30- and 40-year-olds, strive to achieve. However, many of those people fail to realise that the very entry in the business register does not automatically make them entrepreneurs or their business successful. Neither does a good (or even excellent and innovative) business idea that attracts customers, as it was in Kodak’s, Blockbuster’s, or Ask Jeeves’ case. What is required, is the ability to stay attractive to existing and prospective customers, i.e., the ability to win and retain customers, and to adapt to the changing demands, trends and economic conditions. All this can be achieved thanks to a meticulously designed and regularly reviewed and updated business model. The aim of this paper is to present and analyse the learning process of acquiring and building competences in the area of business models with the use of different innovative tools. The results presented and discussed in this article come from surveys as well as face-to-face and on-line meetings conducted in the ProBM 2 ERASMUS+ project (Understanding and Developing Business Models in the Era of Globalisation), in which the total of 261 respondents from seven (7) European countries, i.e. Poland, Italy, Greece, Romania, Portugal, Malta, and Switzerland, took part between 2019 and 2022. From the meetings and surveys it follows that much more awareness of business models needs to be encouraged and developed, particularly as regards improving competences helping future business owners and their employees assess profitability and efficiency of their operations and ensure that the business will be a going concern.
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 | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".