MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327967838 · doi:10.54691/bcpbm.v42i.4566

Re-predict and Improve the Outlook for The Overall Decline of The Big-box Retailer Industry: Case of Target's Tailures in Canada

2023· article· en· W4327967838 on OpenAlexaffabout
Junyang Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueBCP Business & Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetitor analysisCompetition (biology)MarketingBusinessVolatility (finance)AdvertisingIndustrial organizationCommerceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rise of e-commerce in the 21st century has dramatically impacted the Canadian and global consumer markets. During this period of high economic volatility, many big-box retail chains have gone out of business due to ineffective modes of business. Through the case study of the rise and fall of Target Canada between 2013-2015, and cross-referencing the company’s statistics with the successes of other surviving competitors such as Walmart, many flaws of its operations were exposed. The four fundamental flaws in Target Canada’s operations were found to be: Overly-aggressive expansion into a foreign market niche; a high level of competition with other retailers due to a lack of specialties in merchandise; Low brand loyalties due to poor consumer experience, and Lack of user-friendly online shopping platforms, mobile app platforms, and other auxiliary services. This study has concluded that Target Canada’s lack of implementation of technological innovations and its ineffective logistical planning were the two major causes of its ultimate downfall. Suggestions for correction and improvements are discussed, which may give insight to current and future entrepreneurs who wish to enter the Canadian market as a retailer.

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 score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBCP Business & ManagementSame topicConsumer Retail Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207