University support and entrepreneurial intention: does a dedicated entrepreneurship course matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on university support's effect on entrepreneurial intentions often overlooks cognitive and non-cognitive support distinctions. This paper compares students who receive cognitive support, particularly an entrepreneurship course, with those who do not. Analyzing data from 2,259 students through Structural Equation Modeling reveals that non-cognitive support significantly affects perceptions of cognitive support and selfefficacy in non-benefiting students, while cognitive support boosts self-efficacy among beneficiaries. The study shows that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between perceived university support and entrepreneurial intention, fully mediating non-cognitive support for non-beneficiaries and cognitive support for beneficiaries. Universities can tailor their support ecosystem to enhance entrepreneurial intentions beyond business disciplines. • The distinction between cognitive and non-cognitive supports remains largely overlooked. • The perceived non-cognitive support significantly affects students' perceptions of cognitive support. • A direct influence of non-cognitive support on students' entrepreneurial intentions was not found. • Universities could enhance both cognitive and non-cognitive support to promote entrepreneurial intention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".