MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1596497386 · doi:10.1111/gean.12005

Which Birds of a Feather Flock Together? Clustering and Avoidance Patterns of Similar Retail Outlets

2013· article· en· W1596497386 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert E. Krider, Daniel S. Putler

Bibliographic record

VenueGeographical Analysis · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaHong Kong University of Science and TechnologyUniversity of Washington
KeywordsCompetitor analysisHumanitiesAmbiguityCluster analysisComputer scienceSociologyGeographyMarketingBusinessPhilosophyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A key factor in a retailer's location decision is whether to avoid direct competitors or to join them in a cluster. A review of theoretical research provides reasons why some types of stores should locate together while others should avoid one another. Although application of the theory is straightforward for some store types, the somewhat stylized theory is ambiguous for many store types. Empirical work, which could reduce this ambiguity, faces methodological difficulties and is very limited. Few store types have been studied, and findings often are inconsistent. First, we address this problem by assessing the degree of avoidance or clustering of 54 different store types in two cities using a rich, intuitive measure that avoids common methodological difficulties encountered in previous research. We find both theoretically expected and unexpected location behavior, as well as some surprisingly complex location patterns. Second, we explore two unexpected and intriguing configurations. Finally, we discuss our results and propose further research opportunities. Un factor clave para determinar la ubicación de un local de ventas es decidir si se evitará establecerlo junto a la competencia directa o, más bien, conviene agruparse junto a ella. Si se revisa la investigación teórica del tema, encontramos motivos por los que a algunos tipos de tiendas deberían estar juntos, mientras que otros deberían evitarse completamente. Si bien la aplicación de la teoría es directa y simple para algunas clases de tiendas, en muchos otros casos, esta teoría ‐relativamente estilizada ‐, se vuelve algo ambigua. Por su parte, el trabajo empírico, que podría reducir esta ambigüedad, se enfrenta a problemas metodológicos y es muy limitado. Son pocos los casos de tipos de tiendas que se han estudiado, y los resultados son, a menudo, inconsistentes. En el presente trabajo, en primer lugar, nos referimos a este problema, evaluando el nivel de evasión o agrupamiento de 54 diferentes tipos de tiendas, en dos ciudades. Para ello utilizamos una nutrida medición intuitiva, que sortea las dificultades metodológicas de anteriores investigaciones. De este modo, encontramos tanto comportamientos de ubicación esperados como inesperados para la teoría. En segundo lugar, exploramos el caso de dos interesante configuraciones inesperadas. Finalmente, discutimos los resultados y proponemos nuevas oportunidades de investigación en el tema. 零售区位确定的一个重要因素在于是否能避免直接竞争或加入集聚。理论研究综述分析了某些类型商店应集聚分布而其他商店分布应趋于分散的原因。虽然可直接将现有理论应用于某些类型商店的研究,但程式化的理论模式在解释许多类型商店的区位选择时却模糊不清。实证工作可降低模糊性,但操作方法比较困难且应用非常有限,因为通常只有少数类型商店被用于实证分析,且其结果时常不一致。为避免这些问题,我们首先采用一种丰富、直观的方法来评估两个案例城市中54种不同商店类型的集聚度或分散度,发现了理论预期与不可预期的区位行为以及一些令人惊讶的复杂区位模式。然后,我们进一步探讨了两种不可预期的和有趣的区位配置模式。最后,讨论了本文的研究结果并给出了后续研究展望。

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)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations41
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeographical AnalysisSame topicConsumer Market Behavior and PricingFrench-language works237,207