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

Downtowns in transition

2005· article· en· W1497004404 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tony Hernández, Ken Jones

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

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

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 designObservational
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

Citations44
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Retail & Distribution ManagementSame topicConsumer Retail Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207