MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1497004404 · doi:10.1108/09590550510629392

Downtowns in transition

2005· article· en· W1497004404 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Retail & Distribution Management · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntownMetropolitan areaGeographyOriginalityDemographicsBusinessMarketingService (business)Regional sciencePolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To detail the changing nature of retail and service activity in Canada's downtowns and examine the role of business improvement areas (BIAs) in promoting downtown vitality. Design/methodology/approach The research is based on a combination of retail structural analysis and case study research. The structural analysis provides data on transitioning urban demographics and tracks retail and service activity sales change in Canada's major metropolitan downtowns. The case study reports an overview of findings from in‐depth research with the Downtown Yonge BIA. A small number of retail metrics are presented. Findings The paper highlights the significant suburb shift in retail activity across Canada's metropolitan areas and the associated challenges that this has resulted in for the downtown. The role of BIAs are outlined, and examined with reference to operation of the BIA concept within the downtown core of Canada's largest metropolitan market, Toronto. Research limitations/implications The research has been selective in focusing on the Downtown Yonge BIA, the experiences of BIAs across Toronto (and other Canada metropolitan areas) are likely to vary widely. Highlights the need to develop metrics to measure performance and compare BIAs. Practical implications The paper provides an interesting perspective on BIA strategies, with the selected metrics providing BIA managers and urban planners with a set of additional measures to assess BIA performance Originality/value The paper relates BIA planning to the development of performance metrics.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.238 · 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