Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Sustainable entrepreneurship is an important socio‐economic phenomenon and has been identified as a promising concept to drive a sustainable business paradigm shift. Scholarly interest has increased in recent years; however, there remains a lack of understanding and agreement on the nature of the phenomenon and the future of sustainable entrepreneurship theory. This review evaluates the developing academic literature on sustainable entrepreneurship to better understand its potential and progress. The aim of this review is to offer a conceptual basis that will encourage scholarly discussion and advance our understanding of sustainable entrepreneurship as a distinct sub‐field within entrepreneurship research. I apply boundary concepts to examine 71 sustainable entrepreneurship articles published in major academic journals throughout the evolution of the field. I argue that the constructs of sustainable development opportunities, individuals and teams, and forms of organizing within the context of the larger environmental setting can be used to develop an approach to sustainable entrepreneurship research that better defines the field and strengthens its legitimacy. I define the boundaries of the field of sustainable entrepreneurship using the constructs of sustainable development opportunities, individuals and teams, and forms of organizing within the context of the larger environmental setting. I identify emerging themes in the literature and categorize the themes using the identified constructs. Finally, using the identified boundary constructs and their intersections, I suggest future research directions for theory and methodological development of the field.
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 | 0.017 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".