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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the link between efficiency and profitability in the US specialty retailers and food consumer stores using cross‐sectional data for the year 2007. Design/methodology/approach This study uses a non‐parametric data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach to measure the relative efficiency of 45 retailers in the USA. The study also quantitatively examines the link between efficiency and profitability. Findings The results indicate that there is a positive link between efficiency and profitability in the US specialty retailers and food consumer stores. The results also indicate that the performance of several retailers is sub‐optimal, suggesting the potential for significant improvements over both profitability and marketability dimensions. Separate benchmarks were derived for possible reductions in resources used, and significant savings are possible on this account. Originality/value From a policy perspective, this study highlights the economic importance of encouraging increased efficiency throughout the retailing sector in the US. At the theoretical level, the study empirically confirms the existence of a positive and significant link between efficiency and profitability in the US specialty retailers and food consumer stores.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it