MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Conceptual Framework for Rural Women Social Entrepreneurs Looking at the intersection between gender and rural social enterprise

2022· article· en· W4408470816 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
C. G. A. Bryant

Bibliographic record

VenueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and Policy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntersection (aeronautics)Social enterpriseSocial entrepreneurshipSociologyWomen entrepreneursConceptual frameworkGender studiesBusinessPolitical scienceGeographyEntrepreneurshipPublic relationsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social enterprises create social, environmental, or cultural value through profitable trade. They address social needs, strengthen communities, improve people’s life chances or protect the environment (Scottish Government, 2016). They are prevalent in rural areas to address critical social needs as well as with entrepreneurs and community groups that wish to attract sustainable tourism or engage in socially and environmentally responsible business initiatives. Women, and therefore rural women, are at the forefront of social enterprise with 65% of women in leadership positions (Social Value Lab, 2019). However, there appears to be little support for rural women social entrepreneurs. A gap seems to exist in both research and policy between gender and social entrepreneurship. While countries such as Canada and Scotland have taken strides to support gender equality, women in business and the burgeoning social enterprise sector, the seemingly apparent lack of cohesion is present. This presentation will introduce a conceptual framework to intersect these areas through a rural lens. The work will be geographically situated in the Scottish Highlands and Islands.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.387
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.254 · 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.

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
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and PolicySame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207