MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321105981 · doi:10.3390/land12020489

Assessing the Relative and Combined Effects of Network, Demographic, and Suitability Patterns on Retail Store Sales

2023· article· en· W4321105981 on OpenAlexafffund
Junyi Wang, Derek T. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueLand · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersMitacs
KeywordsOrdinary least squaresRetail salesEconometricsMarketingSelection (genetic algorithm)BusinessRegression analysisComputer scienceEconomicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite challenges associated with acquiring proprietary sales data, there exists a wealth of literature using different types of data (e.g., spending, demographic, geographic) to understand or represent different drivers of retail store sales. We contribute to the spatial analysis of drivers of retail store sales by analyzing the relative influence of road networks, demographic, and suitability variables on retail store sales within the home-improvement sector. Results demonstrate that the inclusion of variables describing the road network pattern is more influential in predicting store sales than demographic and suitability variables with linear models (e.g., ordinary- and partial-least squares regression) as well as with a non-linear mathematical model derived using artificial intelligence. The analysis builds on previous research estimating consumer spending and a big-data suitability analysis for site selection that incorporates spatial interaction models, location quotient, and other unique criteria that are typically used in isolation. The overarching contribution of our results is the demonstration that network patterns can play a critical role in retail store sales, especially when regressions, analogs, and other simple methods for site selection are used.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLandSame topicHuman Mobility and Location-Based AnalysisFrench-language works237,207