MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W751326400 · doi:10.25916/sut.26292925

Understanding how Indigenous community factors affect Indigenous entrepreneurial process

2024· article· en· W751326400 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bob Kayseas

Bibliographic record

VenueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousAffect (linguistics)Process (computing)BusinessSociologyComputer scienceCommunicationEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Indigenous people in colonized countries across the globe are attempting to attain equitable life circumstances on par with populations that form the majority. The manner in which Indigenous peoples seek to achieve this assumes many different forms, some confrontational and some involving reconciliation. One way Indigenous people hope to create higher living standards in their communities is by engaging in the acquisition, creation and management of new ventures. In Canada these entrepreneurial activities occur in a variety of settings. This thesis is focused upon entrepreneurial activities (principally those of new venture creation) within one specific type of Indigenous community â- the reserve or 'band'. The research problem. The research problem reported in this thesis is fundamentally concerned with the broad issue of how a wide range of entrepreneurial processes can be successfully conducted in the context of Canadian Indigenous band communities. It is a thesis about the role of context on entrepreneurial process in a particular setting. Put at its simplest, my core question, stated at its broadest level of generality is: what makes for successful as distinct from unsuccessful entrepreneurship in the Canadian band community context? To do this, I need to understand how Indigenous context at the community level influences entrepreneurial process. The thesis thus involves the quest to achieve two actionable objectives. Objective 1: perform a structured investigation. This research seeks to understand the entrepreneurship phenomenon and associated entrepreneurial processes as they occur in Indigenous communities (as represented by Canadian bands) by detailed, structured examination and comparison of How Indigenous Community Context Affects Indigenous Entrepreneurial Process iv communities that are performing entrepreneurship (both successfully and unsuccessfully) and communities that are not even attempting entrepreneurial performance. Objective 2: develop a theoretical/analytical framework directly germane to understanding the relationship between Indigenous community context and successful entrepreneurial process. Conceptual discovery Involved three literature reviews. (1) Development of an understanding of the context of the Indigenous band and entrepreneurship within the specific 'band' environment (chapter 2). (2) A review of multiple generic perspectives on Indigenous under-development and entrepreneurship (Chapter 3). (3) A search for existing wisdom and models purporting to be effective for understanding the entrepreneurial potential of a 'community' (chapter 4) Two empirical investigations A two-part empirical investigation was conducted. I first constructed a grounded theory of successful entrepreneurship from data obtained through semistructured interviews of members from three 'exemplar' Canadian Indigenous bands. Then, after comparing the emergent-grounded theory against existing frameworks a second empirical investigation involved three theoretically guided 'case studies' with the objective of formulating a model that could identify the salient features of 'community' that affect the entrepreneurial process. Results The first stage empirical investigation resulted in a grounded theory with significant comportment with the analytical framework posited by Hindle (2010). 'Community factors' that facilitated the entrepreneurial process in the exemplar communities were in five 'categories', (1) governance and institutions, (2) culture and tradition, (3) land, (4) human capital, (5) networks. These findings comported well with Hindle's existing diagnostic framework which was then employed for further empirical study. A revised analytical framework called the Indigenous Community Venturing Model (ICVM) resulted from further case How Indigenous Community Context Affects Indigenous Entrepreneurial Process v studies. The ICVM is my principle finding and has significant implications for research, practice and policy. Implications In Canada there are many researchers studying entreprepreurship, but few focussed on Indigenous issues. Interested parties can find a variety of studies about Indigenous entrepreneurship but the majority of these are not empirically based. The literature is fragmented and eclectic. This left a gap (now filled) in the information available for future researchers, practitioners, Indigenous and non-Indigenous governments and policy makers. Researchers, practitioners and policy makers will find the ICVM to be both necessary and a useful tool.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology)Same topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207