Entrepreneurship through (Cognitive) Emancipation: Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice in Contexts of Oppression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To help address the daunting reality of widespread human oppression, this paper offers a conceptual extension to a contemporary perspective on entrepreneurial activity that we suggest is of particular relevance for individuals living under oppressive conditions: emancipatory entrepreneurship theory. We extend this perspective by calling attention to the cognitive dynamics that precede the decision to engage in emancipation-motivated entrepreneurship within such environments, highlighting the specific importance of achieving cognitive liberation from the psychological state of learned helplessness that oppressed individuals often enact as a coping mechanism. We use the term “cognitive emancipation” to refer to this liberated state of mind, conceptualizing it as being characterized by mindfulness and an autonomous worldview. To help spur future research, we present and elaborate a process model delineating key cognitive factors that trigger—and are triggered by—this focal construct. We also offer various suggestions for the design and delivery of practical initiatives attentive to the importance of cognitive emancipation as a necessary psychological precursor to the pursuit of emancipation-motivated entrepreneurial endeavors within contexts of oppression.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".