Unveiling cogent insights: exploring the frontiers of entrepreneurship and innovation through relevant and rigorous research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This editorial serves as an introduction to the newly inaugurated Entrepreneurship and Innovation (E&I) section within Cogent Business & Management (Cogent). We delineate the specific submission categories and entrepreneurship facets that align with the section’s thematic focus. This editorial delves into the nuanced qualities that define articles of significance within the E&I section, aiming to help prospective authors position their work for not just publication success, but also impact. Specifically, the nexus of relevance and rigor is explored, highlighting the need for scholarship that not only advances academic literature and addresses contemporary challenges, but also adheres to methodological rigor, ensuring robust and credible contributions to the field. In conclusion, we present the editorial leadership team of the new E&I section at Cogent, showcasing the collective expertise and commitment to fostering a vibrant and impactful scholarly community. This editorial sets the tone for the section and invites scholars to contribute to the advancement of entrepreneurship and innovation research by publishing their scholarship in Cogent.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it