MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985011566 · doi:10.1068/a35102

(Re)Solving Space and Time: Fulfilment Issues in Online Grocery Retailing

2003· article· en· W1985011566 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning A Economy and Space · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexMarketingBusinessFlexibility (engineering)The InternetSupply chainSpeculationSpace (punctuation)VitalityStrengths and weaknessesEconomicsComputer scienceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been much hype and speculation in the media and in academe on the vitality and future of the ‘Internet economy’. In this paper the author uses case studies from Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the United States to assess the strengths and weaknesses of online grocery retailers, from national chain stores pursuing a ‘bricks and clicks' strategy to ‘pure-play’ startups. He argues that delivering groceries via the Internet to customer doorsteps requires ways of solving space and time that are markedly different from previous trends in food retail logistics. He holds that solving problems of space management creates problems in the management of time and vice versa. In particular, ‘e-tailers’ struggle with fulfilment costs and logistics, and have attempted to manage customers' time and locations to reduce these costs. Store-based operations may be best suited for short-term profitability (or loss minimisation), whereas warehouse-based fulfilment may hold future promise of greater efficiency and flexibility. The author suggests that online organic home delivery may be the most successful type of online food retailer, for its size, given greater customer commitment and problems with store-based supply of organic food.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.017
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations55
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Planning A Economy and SpaceSame topicConsumer Retail Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207