Accelerator cohort social network structure and startup performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Startup accelerators have become a widespread means of supporting entrepreneurs and their ventures. Yet, deductive empirical research explaining and predicting peer effects in startup accelerator cohorts is wanting. Following cues from the theoretical and empirical literatures, we hypothesize and find that higher performing cohorts have more connections between peer startups. This suggests that beyond merely acting as brokers, accelerators enable potentially valuable peer effects. However, as the dark side of density literature suggests, we also hypothesize an inverse curvilinear relationship between cohort peer network density and likelihood that a cohort will produce a unicorn. In this research, we measure the performance of the Startup Accelerator cohort in terms of the number of startups with high valuations in the cohort. High valuation startups were identified by Techstars on their 2019 Top 50 startups list featuring graduates from their accelerator. We approximate the intra-cohort social network structures of 1537 startups comprising 154 Techstars cohorts using their activity on Twitter. We find that there exists an upper limit to the impact of cohort network density on performance, after which any further increase becomes negative.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".