MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401061467 · doi:10.1177/01492063241264226

Four Approaches to New Venture Creation: Taking Stock and Moving Forward

2024· article· en· W4401061467 on OpenAlexaff
James G. Combs, Marc Gruber, Shaker A. Zahra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContextualizationNormativeNew VenturesFoundation (evidence)Stock (firearms)EntrepreneurshipBusinessSociologyKnowledge managementMarketingManagementManagement scienceEpistemologyEconomicsComputer sciencePolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lean startup, effectuation, creation theory, and the theory-based view represent four different descriptive theories of how new ventures emerge and/or normative theories of how new ventures should be developed. We juxtapose the four approaches and describe their similarities and differences, which provides a foundation for considering complementarities among the approaches and constructing a future research agenda for additional reconciliation and contextualization regarding how successful new ventures are, or should be, developed under varying circumstances.

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 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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ManagementSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207