MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4302795863 · doi:10.32920/19750123

Chicago area Chick-fil-A stores as an analogue to GTA site selection

2022· preprint· en· W4302795863 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ryan Wilkinson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyProfitability indexPopulationPower (physics)Agricultural economicsSocioeconomic statusSelection (genetic algorithm)Agricultural scienceDemographyEconomicsSociologyFinanceComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Site selection is integral to market share and profitability of retail outlets. Geographical similarities between Chicago and Toronto inspired the implementation of an analogue model centred around socioeconomic/demographic data for Chick-fil-A (CFA) expansion into GTA power centres. 1, 3, and 5km concentric rings were delimitated around Chicago store locations, combined variable averages were calculated and compared to Chicago’s regional averages. Median household income, percentage of family households, population density, and residents between 30 -39 and 60 were found to be above average in combined Chicago CFA store trade areas. Analysis of McDonalds, Wendy’s, and KFC spatial relationship with Chicago CFA stores showed no evidence of parasitic behaviour. Results of the analogue model yielded the top 10 suitable power centre nodes in the GTA. Suitable power centres location were found in Richmond Hill, Markham, Mississauga, Oakville, Burlington, Pickering, North York, Etobicoke, and Leaside..</p>

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.245 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConsumer Retail Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207