MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401334765 · doi:10.1177/01492063241264228

Contextualizing Lean Startup and Alternative Approaches for New Venture Creation: Introducing the Special Issue

2024· article· en· W4401334765 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Strategies and Innovation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLean manufacturingEntrepreneurshipSet (abstract data type)BlankNew VenturesManagementStart upBusinessSociologyMarketingEngineeringComputer scienceEconomicsBusiness administrationMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Lean Startup movement fundamentally changed entrepreneurial education and the way new ventures evolve. While Steve Blank and other founders of the movement embraced academic ideas, the movement grew among practitioners largely disconnected from academic entrepreneurship research. The purposes of this special issue are (1) to better connect Lean Startup practice to academic entrepreneurship research and (2) to advance theory regarding Lean Startup practices and their outcomes. After a brief and personal story of Lean Startup’s beginnings by its founder, Steve Blank, the first set of papers in this special issue juxtapose Lean Startup with alternative approaches to new venture creation developed by scholars outside the influence of the Lean Startup movement. The second set of papers describe how Lean Startup might be contextualized for different unique situations. The third set dives into different Lean Startup practices to help researchers and practitioners think more deeply about decisions and trade-offs made during implementation of Lean Startup.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score0.765

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.215 · 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