MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406701575 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18020046

Leveraging Social and Intellectual Capital for Social Entrepreneurship: A Model for Sustainable Business Practices in an Uncertain Environment

2025· article· en· W4406701575 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Krishna R Dixit, Pranav Kumar, Kumar Aashish, Mohammad Zohair

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Capital and Performance Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial capitalEntrepreneurshipBusinessSocial entrepreneurshipIntellectual capitalSustainable businessKnowledge managementSociologySustainabilityFinanceComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social entrepreneurship helps solve social issues and bridges public and private sectors. This study uses a comprehensive framework to examine social, intellectual, and external risks in social entrepreneurship and its effects on society and the environment. Using the literature review’s variables, this study developed a conceptual model. The empirical research is based on a survey of 252 social entrepreneurs from different industrial/service sectors. The findings show that intellectual capital helps identify and seize social opportunities. Social capital—social networks, knowledge, trust, and critical resources—guide social entrepreneurs through complex social business environments. The study’s novel approach to external uncertainty in social entrepreneurship shows that firms can design risk-resilient strategies to build sustainable business models by considering external uncertainty. Organizations can consider social entrepreneurship’s social and environmental impacts to create businesses that address the root causes of societal issues. The study adds to theoretical understanding by incorporating a variety of factors that influence social entrepreneurship function and frameworks in driving social and environmental impact.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicIntellectual Capital and Performance AnalysisFrench-language works237,207