MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413318893 · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3600468

Domain Adaptation for Retail Demand Prediction

2025· article· en· W4413318893 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Niloofar Tarighat, Maxime C. Cohen, James J. Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Stream Mining Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersInstitut de Valorisation des Données
KeywordsDomain adaptationAdaptation (eye)Computer scienceDomain (mathematical analysis)On demandArtificial intelligenceMultimediaMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predicting the demand of products in the retail industry is a complex task, especially when there are changes in the market. This study examines three such changes in the retail industry: the COVID-19 pandemic, opening a new store, and introducing a new product. The study found that the accuracy of demand prediction models decreases after these changes. To address this, the researchers used domain adaptation methods, such as Frustratingly Easy and Kernel Mean Matching, to improve the accuracy of predictions by utilizing data from before the changes and adapting it to the data after the changes. The study also found that using a pairing technique can further enhance prediction accuracy. Two forecasting models, XGBoost and Transformers, were used in the study and XGBoost was found to be more effective. The study used point-of-sale data from 89 locations of Alimentation Couche-Tard convenience stores in Montreal between 2019-07 and 2021-02, and considered product prices alongside sales data to predict product demand. The focus of the study is on the two best-selling product categories of coffee and energy drinks.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicData Stream Mining TechniquesFrench-language works237,207