MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035115104 · doi:10.1068/a34203

Retail Structure of Beijing

2002· article· en· W2035115104 on OpenAlexaff
Shuguang Wang, Ken Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning A Economy and Space · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeijingChinaBusinessRing roadCompetition (biology)Government (linguistics)CensusEconomyEconomic geographyMarket economyGeographyEconomicsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One dynamic and central element in China's urban landscape is its retail structure. Yet, little attention has been given to the burgeoning retail sector in the vast literature that relates to China's economic reforms. Using the latest census of commercial activity in Beijing and recent empirical work undertaken in the city, we analyze Beijing's postreform retail structure and economy. Beijing's retail sector has been greatly diversified in both ownership and format. In addition to the emergence of the numerous family-based retailers, private and joint-stock companies now represent a significant part of the retail enterprises—a strong trend towards a market-oriented economy. The presence of many overseas-invested enterprises shows that the Beijing consumer market has been effectively opened to foreign competition and that the Beijing government has a strong desire to continue this trend. The high concentration of retail facilities in Beijing proper is closely related to the urban form. The relative concentration of full-line department stores within the third ring road suggests that new entrants will be better off if they stay away from the inner city and take peripheral locations outside the third, or even the fourth, ring road, in conjunction with development of the newly planned suburban communities.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations29
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Planning A Economy and SpaceSame topicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207