Pull factors of the shopping malls: an empirical study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study addresses the following question: “What factors attract customers to the shopping mall?”, since the commercial attraction of this major retailing format is an undertaken variable. So, the purpose of this paper is to provide an empirical analysis of the main commercial pull factors of the shopping malls in order to attract potential customers. Design/methodology/approach For this purpose, the authors provide and empirically test a conceptual model considering the variables convenience, tenant variety and specialisation, internal environment, leisure and communication. Data were analysed through structural equation modelling on a sample of 253 customers. Findings The findings suggest that tenant variety and the internal environment of the mall – understood as an adequate tenant mix and a pleasant, attractive environment – are the main determinants of attracting customers. However, the convenience of the shopping mall and the communication activities do not show a significant influence as pull factors. Originality/value The results obtained suggest that marketing managers have numerous tools to influence customers’ intention to visit and patronise shopping malls.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it