MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Entrepreneurial Ingenuity, Social Impact, and Civic Wealth Creation

2025· article· en· W4416001921 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Cristina O. Siqueira, Benson Honig, Robson Cunha, Sandra Regina Holanda Mariano, Joysi Moraes

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIngenuityEntrepreneurshipSustainabilityValue (mathematics)Social entrepreneurshipQualitative researchCorporate social responsibility

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine how people perceive the influence of entrepreneurial ingenuity on their ability to pursue economic, social, and environmental impact. Entrepreneurial ingenuity emphasizes the ability to use imaginative problem solving to create innovative new ventures and value within constraints while voluntarily adopting social and environmental responsibility. By collaborating with public high schools that provide entrepreneurship education to youth in resource-constrained communities, we trained high schoolers’ mothers in entrepreneurial ingenuity. Using a qualitative approach guided by grounded theory, we analyzed interviews with these entrepreneurial women. We find that entrepreneurial ingenuity training tends to help people (1) envision an improved view of their abilities as an entrepreneur, (2) recognize their role in social responsibility and environmental sustainability in a community, and (3) identify inter-generational entrepreneurship and impact actions. Our findings suggest that entrepreneurial ingenuity can help foster civic wealth creation, connecting the entrepreneurial ingenuity and civic wealth creation perspectives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management Proceedings→Same topicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences→French-language works237,207→