MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399430906 · doi:10.1080/00472778.2024.2360049

Assessing motivational factors and effectual mechanisms’ impact on developing radical innovation in small firms

2024· article· en· W4399430906 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Small Business Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessMarketingIndustrial organizationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research has discussed managers’ motivation in fostering innovation in large firms, but the motivational triggers and mechanisms to develop radical innovation in small firms have received less attention. To fill the gap, this study investigates the effects of autonomous motivations of focal entrepreneurs on radical innovations in small firms and examines the role of effectuation as a mediating mechanism in this relationship. By sampling 275 Canadian small firms and using a quantitative method, we found that autonomous motivation leads to radical innovation. Effectuation positively mediates the relationship, and the impact of effectuation on radical innovation is stronger for optimist entrepreneurs. Our post hoc analysis offers a more precise understanding of the process entrepreneurs in high-tech, versus low-tech, small firms undertake to develop radically innovative products.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it