MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404114487 · doi:10.1057/s42214-024-00204-4

Intergovernmental organizations and entrepreneurship: understanding the relationship between the supranational, national, and individual level

2024· article· en· W4404114487 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth M. Moore, Kristin Brandl, Luis Alfonso Dau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Business Policy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipPolitical scienceBusinessRegional scienceEconomic geographySociologyGeographyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), such as the World Trade Organization, the United Nations Trade and Development and the World Bank, promote stability, security and development for member states and their citizens via supranational institutional influences. However, their influence on individuals, especially their entrepreneurial business activities, is unclear. As policymakers decide when more (or less) IGO involvement best serves their countries and citizens, we must better understand the connection of the supranational, national, and individual levels. Thus, we study how IGO membership influences entrepreneurial opportunities and focus on two activities that impact a country’s economy differently: formal and informal entrepreneurship. Moreover, we identify how national institutional ecologies build the bridge between the supranational and the individual level and mediate the relationships. Using a sample of 68 countries, their entrepreneurial environment, and their connection to IGOs, we find that IGO memberships enhance opportunities for entrepreneurship. Moreover, IGOs promote formal entrepreneurial activities while discouraging informal entrepreneurial activities, mediated by the country’s institutional ecology. We combine insights from international relations, institutional theory, and strategic entrepreneurship to highlight how institutions at different levels influence entrepreneurial opportunities and discuss the policy implications of our findings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International Business PolicySame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207