MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evolving retail landscapes: power retail in Canada

2006· article· en· W1629756566 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Tony Hernández, J. Aaron Simmons

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrbanization and City Planning
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessExploitScope (computer science)Retail marketMarketingRetail industryHierarchyPower (physics)Product (mathematics)Retail salesCommerceEconomicsMarket economyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the last fifteen years the Canadian retail landscape has been transformed by the growth and clustering of big box retailers into a range of 'power retail' developments. This has brought new retailers into Canada (predominantly U.S. retailers) with different business strategies that have lead to different consumer behaviour. The power retail phenomenon encompasses all aspects of the retail offer (price, product, service, etc.) and is not simply about the size of stores. These developments have led to new types of commercial clusters—power centres and power nodes—that have challenged both planning policy and the existing retail hierarchy across Canada, and conversely, provided substantial scope for retailers and developers to exploit market opportunities. The article discusses the alternate definitions of power retail, estimates the magnitude of this activity, and examines the spatial pattern and preferences of these new retail locations. The development of power retail is tracked across Canada and regional variations examined. The key trends in power retail growth are identified and potential directions for future development suggested.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.013
Science and technology studies0.0140.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations38
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennesSame topicUrbanization and City PlanningFrench-language works237,207