MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analysis of social entrepreneurship ecosystems in the international context

2023· article· en· W4403200764 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kateryna Davydkova, Valentyna Oberemchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific notes · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)EntrepreneurshipEcosystemGeographyPolitical scienceEcologyBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article examines the ecosystem of social entrepreneurship, its players and identifies its types. The topics of ecosystem and ecosystems of social entrepreneurship are studied in various scientific and literary sources. It has been established, the ecosystem of social entrepreneurship has rarely been the subject of ecosystem studies. Based on the analysis of ecosystems in the international context, the main problems of the social entrepreneurship ecosystem in Ukraine have been identified. The social entrepreneurship ecosystem is a comprehensive tool for supporting social enterprises and social initiatives that aim to solve social problems and improve the quality of people’s lives. The ecosystem formula is a triangle that combines local government, community, and business into a coherent network to support and promote the growth of social enterprises. Ecosystem logic allows us to maintain the required level of innovation and not lose our position in the competitive market. Depending on the key players and elements, the social entrepreneurship ecosystem can be typed through certain components. 7 different types of social entrepreneurship ecosystem and their brief characteristics are presented in this article. In the study, we analysed ecosystems in four countries, including Ukraine. It is found that in the studied countries there is a significant number of types of social entrepreneurship ecosystems. Most social entrepreneurship ecosystems are present in the Netherlands — six types, of which the business ecosystem is the most powerful and efficient. Canada has the most developed ecosystems, and the financial ecosystem is a priority. There are five social entrepreneurship ecosystems in Malaysia, the same as Canada, but the priority is given to the state ecosystem. So, from the experience of these countries, to develop a powerful and effective ecosystem of social entrepreneurship in Ukraine, we must take the experience of government support from Malaysia, experience in financial initiatives from Canada and experience in creating collaborations between business, private sector, and social entrepreneurs from the Netherlands. The leaders in the development of the social entrepreneurship ecosystem in Ukraine are Ternopol and Vinnitsa, two regional centres. Obstacles to social entrepreneurship in Ukraine are lack of funding, low level of social awareness, lack of understanding on the part of society, imperfect legal regulation, and insufficient government support. It is determined that for the effective operation of the social entrepreneurship ecosystem in different countries of the world, there should be assistance from the State, business, and the public, as well as improving the conditions for their activities.

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)0.001
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 score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific notesSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207