MISSION ENTREPRENEURSHIP: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH AGENDA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to provide guidance in the theoretical development of mission entrepreneurship through a Systematic Literature Review and provide an overview of the situation when the research is carried out, as well as discover the gap for further research. The results of the review found answers to research questions, namely that previous studies were more dominant in discussing mission entrepreneurship only as a concept. Based on the review, the research types that are still rarely used are quantitative and mixed-methods. Responses from respondents or researchers are more directed to the concept of mission entrepreneurship. The understanding of mission entrepreneurship is not comprehensive enough. The previous article did not discuss the biblical text as the theological basis for mission entrepreneurship. The geographical distribution (country) analysis, which became the subject and object of research, was more dominant in Indonesia, followed by America. The Church and missionaries more widely use the impact of the research results in the mission field. As for the mission strategy and the mission agency itself, it does not have a significant effect. Therefore, this Systematic Literature Review research is expected to guide and map future mission entrepreneurship theory development.
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 | 0.047 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.046 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".