MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378717516 · doi:10.54452/jrb.1239959

IS IT A MAN’S WORLD? A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF WOMEN’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP LITERATURE FROM A GENDER PERSPECTIVE

2023· article· en· W4378717516 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kübra Şimşek Demirbağ, Umut Denizli, Orkun Demirbağ

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Business · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipCitationPerspective (graphical)Gender gapPolitical scienceSociologyGender studiesSocial scienceDemographic economicsEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although men still spring to mind when entrepreneurship is mentioned, given that women have been highly successful as entrepreneurs, breaking through glass ceilings and having a solid presence in entrepreneurship, it is crucial to uncover how studies of entrepreneurship have evolved from a gender perspective. Therefore, this study aims to determine the extent of academic interest in women's entrepreneurship and what subtopics are included in related studies. To this end, bibliometric analysis methods were used to evaluate articles published in the field of business and management over the past decade. Included in the analysis were 305 articles published in English in the Social Science Citation Indexed Journals on the Web of Science database and originating from the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, the four countries that contribute most to women's entrepreneurship. While most authors contributing to women's entrepreneurship literature are from institutions in the United States, Australian authors are the most collaborative scholars internationally. Moreover, while the literature on women's entrepreneurship was viewed directly from a gender perspective at the beginning of the last decade, it is apparent that subtopics such as risk, entrepreneurial identity, discrimination, and entrepreneurial intention have come into focus over time.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.1090.180
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research in BusinessSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207