MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Retail Concentration and Shopping Center Rents-A Comparison of Two Cities

2009· article· en· W1580096973 on OpenAlexaffabout
François Des Rosiers, Marius Thériault, Catherine Lavoie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Real Estate Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic rentLeaseIndex (typography)Unit (ring theory)BusinessCenter (category theory)Differential (mechanical device)Herfindahl indexRetail salesDemographic economicsEconomicsMarketingMicroeconomicsFinanceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims primarily at testing whether, and to what extent, retail concentration within regional and super-regional shopping centers affect rent levels, as well as the differential impact it may exert for various goods categories and sub-categories and in different urban contexts. In this paper, 1,499 leases distributed among eleven regional and super-regional shopping centers in Montreal and Quebec City, Canada, and negotiated over the 2000-2003 period are considered. Unit base rents (base rent per sq. ft.) are regressed on a series of descriptors that include percentage rent rate, retail unit size (GLA), lease duration, shopping center age, as well as 31 retail categories while the Herfindahl index is used as a measure of intra-category retail concentration. Findings suggest that while, overall, intracategory retail concentration affects base rent negatively, the magnitude and, eventually, direction of the impact varies depending on the nature of the activity and the market dynamics that prevail for the category considered.

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)0.002
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 score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations22
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Real Estate ResearchSame topicConsumer Retail Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207