Factor Analysis of the University Environment and Support System: A Bayesian Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
University students represent a reservoir of entrepreneurial talent and an inherent source of creativity and innovation. One way to help unleash their talents as an engine of economic growth is by increasing our understanding of elements—internal or external, real or perceived—that lead to and influence the emergence of new ventures led by students. There is evidence in the literature that the university environment and support system (ESS) can affect the entrepreneurial intention of students attending the institution. The university ESS comprises the support mechanisms necessary for entrepreneurial activity and could motivate students to consider entrepreneurship a possible career choice. Kraaijenbrink et al. developed and validated a university ESS scale that helped them identify three motivational factors of the university ESS influencing entrepreneurial intention. Despite its increasing popularity, a detailed study and analysis of the Kraaijenbrink et al. university ESS scale are still lacking in the extant literature. This study fills that gap by conducting an extensive factor analysis of the university ESS scale using a Bayesian approach. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time this scale has been the subject of such an extensive investigation. We capitalized on the added flexibility of the Bayesian approach to address novel substantive questions through the mathematical model. We used it to enrich our understanding of the university ESS and generate new ideas for possible scale and model modifications. Furthermore, this evaluation provided novel insight into the relationships among the many dimensions of the university ESS. In the future, similar studies conducted by aspiring entrepreneurial universities could help them interpret the efficacy of their efforts to promote entrepreneurial activities among students.
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 | 0.017 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".