Entrepreneurship by indigenous people in Canada and Australia: diverse modes and community implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Entrepreneurship by Indigenous people in Canada and Australia, while historically connected to the ancestral lands and traditional practices of Indigenous people, has been evolving and expanding in scope and nature. In this article, the authors aim to offer an integrative framework for capturing the contemporary dynamics and outcomes of entrepreneurship by Indigenous people as they pursue venture creation as part of their broader development aspirations. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on literature from place-based views of entrepreneurship and social identity theory, the authors develop a typology to account for four modes of entrepreneurship by Indigenous people along two contextual dimensions – Indigenous territory and Indigenous marker. Findings Indigenous practicing entrepreneurship may choose to conduct business within or outside of traditional lands and demonstrate more or less indigeneity in their business activities as they marshal resources and seek opportunities. The authors identify how these diverse Indigenous businesses contribute to the economic development among Indigenous communities as part of their ongoing struggle to rebuild their “nations” using business. Originality/value This article contributes by differentiating sociocultural vs economic resources in noneconomic contexts to develop a theoretical typology of Indigenous entrepreneurship. By detailing the relations between Indigenous territories and Indigenous lands and between Indigenous identity and Indigenous markers, the authors contribute to a more nuanced and practical conceptualization of Indigenous 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".