MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037964294 · doi:10.4018/jagr.2013010105

Network Planning and Retail Store Segmentation

2013· article· en· W2037964294 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Applied Geospatial Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeospatial analysisComputer scienceConstruct (python library)Decision support systemSegmentationMarket segmentationComponent (thermodynamics)Investment (military)Data scienceInvestment decisionsKnowledge managementBusinessMarketingArtificial intelligenceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Store segmentation aims to divide a network of stores into meaningful groups, typically based on a combination of operational, site and trading environment characteristics. It is an increasingly important component within network planning activities of major retail chains due to the significant capital investment that is physically grounded in their large store networks. The paper outlines findings from case study research that has focused on developing spatial decision support tools that enable decision makers to explore, construct and visualize store segments. An integrated spatial statistical approach to store segmentation is detailed and associated benefits and shortfalls discussed. The paper highlights the potential to develop customised geospatial tools to support network planning decision making activities. It is argued that geospatial decision support tools need to be designed to accommodate the varying GIS skill-levels of potential end-users and that fundamentally more emphasis needs to be placed on creating tools that can be used by decision-makers as opposed to analysts.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.265 · 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