Remembering “Aunt Emma”: small retailing between nostalgia and a conflicted past
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper calls for a reconsideration of standard narratives regarding the role of small, independent retailers for twentieth‐century urban communities. The paper aims to discuss the issues. Design/methodology/approach Taking the German city of Bremen as an example, the paper problematizes the nostalgic treatment of independent “Aunt Emma” (or “mom‐and‐pop”) stores in Germany during the last quarter of the century, by recounting the often conflict‐laden history of small retailers within the urban community. It draws on primary documents from retail associations, the chamber of commerce, municipal administrations, as well as media coverage. Findings The romanticization of the corner grocer overlooked the often divisive role of small store‐keepers in the interwar years as well as the social considerations behind some forms of retail modernization. Originality/value Beyond the particular examples of Bremen or even Germany, the paper urges historians of modern retailing to critically analyze the everyday role shops and shopkeepers have played within their communities without at the same time embracing a market‐liberal narrative of retail modernization as a function of consumer demand.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".