MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410059858 · doi:10.1177/00018392251333696

Organizational Emplacement as a Response to Digital Threat: The Novel Resurgence of Independent Bookstores

2025· article· en· W4410059858 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ryan Raffaelli, Ryann Noe

Bibliographic record

VenueAdministrative Science Quarterly · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of OregonMcGill UniversityGeorge Washington UniversityUniversity of Southern California
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)BusinessNarrativeMechanism (biology)Public relationsSociologyPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study reveals how incumbent actors leverage physical place as a source of differentiation in response to the threat of digital commoditization. Through a longitudinal, qualitative analysis of the U.S. independent bookselling industry from 1995 to 2019, we outline how dispersed organizational actors responded to the rise of Amazon.com, an online retailer that threatened to displace brick-and-mortar retail. While many analysts predicted that Amazon’s emergence would incite a retail apocalypse, independent bookstores proved to be far more resilient than expected. We identify organizational emplacement—a process by which actors infuse meaning into physical spaces , thereby transforming them into valuable places —as a novel mechanism of value creation. Several practices are associated with this mechanism, including architecting the physical environment, anchoring to the local community, and sanctifying the meaning of place. This study offers a counterbalance to narratives of digital displacement and shows how physical place can be converted from a liability into an asset in the digital era.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.031
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdministrative Science QuarterlySame topicConsumer Retail Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207