MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384936952 · doi:10.57229/2373-1761.1471

Alternative Sources of Financing and the Sustainability of Cameroonian Start-ups

2023· article· en· W4384936952 on OpenAlexaff
Félix Zogning, Mireille Bityé, Massoussi Ma Goued Samuel Emile

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œjournal of entrepreneurial finance · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEconomic Growth and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStart upSustainabilityFinanceSocial capitalMarketingBusinessCapital (architecture)AgricultureQualitative researchSociologyBusiness administrationGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the paper is to assess the contribution of alternative sources of financing to the survival of SMIs through an analysis of start-ups in Cameroon. Our study employs a qualitative multisite case study methodology. Data was collected from both documentary and primary sources. For the primary data, we conducted semidirected interviews with five start-ups operating in four fields of activity (agriculture, health, finance and ICTs) to assess in depth the behaviour of various promoters who have received alternative financing at least once. The results of our manual and automated analysis led to two major findings: firstly, it is possible to identify alternative financing in the environment of Cameroonian start-ups in the form of social capital (help from loved ones, support from elites and families, community fundraisers, tontines) on the one hand, and crowdfunding on the other. Secondly, these two means of alternative financing are significant sources of added value for the survival of start-ups not only through the preparation and precreation activities (social capital) but as important levers in improving the organizational strategies of start-ups (fundraising among individuals and the possibility of marketing through platforms).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œjournal of entrepreneurial financeSame topicEconomic Growth and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207