The Cogs and Wheels of Cultural Entrepreneurship: The Becoming of New Possibilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cultural entrepreneurship—that is, the cultural dynamics of entrepreneurship, innovation, and change—has attracted significant interest across business, sociology, and creative industries scholarship. However, these disciplines have evolved along separate trajectories, each establishing its own distinct research tradition. This fragmentation has hindered the development of an integrative understanding of how culture shapes, and is shaped by, entrepreneurial action. Drawing on 301 publications spanning over 40 years, we develop a framework that unites three distinct traditions of cultural entrepreneurship research focused on the mobilization, production, and expression of culture. We argue that these traditions, though developed separately, share a fundamental interest in the cultural means and processes that explain the becoming of new possibilities—that is, how novel ideas, products, and organizations come into being and gain recognition. By systematizing the outcomes that each tradition prioritizes and revealing their interconnections, we expose how entrepreneurial action draws on, transforms, and expresses culture. This integration offers a comprehensive understanding of culture as both the medium and outcome of entrepreneurial action, as actors work toward the realization of new possibilities.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".