A Multi-Scale Suitability Analysis of Home-Improvement Retail-Store Site Selection for Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A multi-scale suitability analysis using big data (4.7 million suitability scores) is presented across a large spatial extent (1.076 million km 2 ) to identify potential locations for new home-improvement retail stores. Suitability scores were generated for individual property parcels using criteria weights derived from surveyed retail-industry experts. To increase capacity for site selection, distributions of suitability scores were generated at census dissemination areas (populations 500-700; n = 19,963) and census metropolitan and agglomeration areas (core populations >10,000; n = 43). Analogues among metropolitan and agglomeration areas were generated and spatial clustering was used to identify groups of highly-suitable parcels within urban areas. Lastly, individual parcels can be interrogated for overall suitability or individual criteria scores. Our approach combines retail methods typically used in isolation (e.g. location quotient, Huff’s model, network analysis) and demonstrates how a simple survey can be used to weight criteria. Results show that survey respondents were in general agreement and that top-line revenues were more critical to perceived location success than development and operational costs. Analysis of suitability scores found analogues and clusters of census metropolitan areas that coincide with store sales as well as clusters of highly suitable parcels predominantly located around major highways. In addition to identifying challenges and solutions to the presented research, we also describe future research directions that extend the presented static analysis to include processes like store closure and openings, competition, and land use change through the use of agent-based modelling.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".