MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Does Small Store Location Matter? A Test of Three Classic Theories of Retail Location

2008· article· en· W1975506435 on OpenAlexaff
Reginald A. Litz, Gulasekaran Rajaguru

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)Location theoryMarketingAdvertisingBusinessEconometricsMathematicsEconomicsEconomic geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Just how important is physical location as a source of small-firm advantage? In this paper we consider this question by testing the predictive validity of three classic perspectives: central-place theory, spatial interaction theory and the principle of minimum differentiation. In addition, we identify and test two managergrounded hypotheses focusing on locational continuity and transactional convenience. We test these hypotheses on a sample of small U.S. retail hardware stores and find significant support for central-place theory and both manager-grounded hypotheses.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations56
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Small Business & EntrepreneurshipSame topicConsumer Retail Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207