Exploration of an Online Network with Women Entrepreneurs: A Case Study” (PhD dissertation, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto). Available at: http://www.daleink.com
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present in situ qualitative case study describes the events and processes that led a group of 21 women entrepreneurs to form an online networking community. For one year, all participants, who had minimal computer-mediated communication experience, were encouraged to use the university's asynchronous shared virtual space software as a potential alternative to face-to-face networking. I originally planned to observe and to describe the online interactions that would capture these business owners' activities. Because of the participants ' responses and the issues that arose, I became an active participant. Barriers hindering the success of this education and entrepreneurial collaboration involved six participant reluctance themes related to: 1) computer skills, 2) priorities, 3) relevance, 4) trust, 5) privacy, and 6) professional image. In contemplating a final online event called a speaker's series, participants expressed a risk to their professional image. Their disclosure prompted a more satisfying design activity and additionally corroborated the other reluctance themes. Encouragement through experimentation with elements of learning organization
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".