Development of a Tool to Evaluate Innovation Practices and Entrepreneurship in an International Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Entrepreneurship is considered as important value adding tool for the entire economy. In fact, entrepreneurs are frequently thought of as national assets to be cultivated and motivated to the greatest possible extent. In today’s global economy, exciting opportunities for cross border trade exist like never before. As a result of this, international entrepreneurship and innovation have come to the forefront of discussions in recent times. International entrepreneurship can be defined as “...the process of an entrepreneur conducting business activities across national boundaries.” Alternatively, it can also be defined as, “...a combination of innovative, proactive and risk seeking behavior that crosses national borders and is intended to create value within organizations.” For international entrepreneurship, there are a slew of factors that have to be taken into consideration such as economics, type of economic system, political-legal environment, culture, acceptance to risk etc. In addition to understanding entrepreneurship in other countries, it is important for local entrepreneurs to understand the kinds of practices that lead to innovations in other countries. In this paper, the co-authors will develop a tool to evaluate the innovation practices and entrepreneurship efforts being done in the US as well as in other countries. The countries that will be evaluated using this tool will be The United States, Canada, Germany, Austria, India, Finland, Poland, Bulgaria, China and Japan. The tool developed will be a survey to capture practices and qualities of entrepreneurs in those countries at various stages of the entrepreneurial lifecycle.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".