Alert during what? Beyond the “Big O” to a culturally-cognizant, process view of entrepreneurial alertness
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
Abstract Entrepreneurial alertness is a psychological aptitude generally associated with aspects of nascent venturing, centered on individuals’ environmental observations, the association of resources, and idea evaluation. A decade following the Tang et al. (2012) consensus construct and scale, critiques remain questioning its utility and unique value to the major conversations in entrepreneurship. Proponents put great emphasis on entrepreneurial alertness’s proven association with opportunity recognition and entrepreneurial actions. Yet, critics suggest it might be an unnecessary step offering little more than a positive association with opportunity recognition in a highly generalized and static way. The purpose of this paper is to address this tension. We do so through a ‘steel man’ approach to these valid concerns. Further, we question the logic of limiting a cognitive construct to a singular event: ‘opportunity recognition’ for a new venture (which we term here, the “Big O”). Drawing on a comprehensive framework inclusive of the full entrepreneurship phenomenon, and integrating insights from cross-cultural psychology, we put forth the case for an ongoing culturally contextualized process perspective towards venturing where individuals are alert to and pursue opportunities (and cope with threats) continuously. This paper provides a new framework for delineating a theoretically grounded “what” and “when” of entrepreneurial alertness.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it