MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1517766639 · doi:10.3828/jtep.2004.38.1.1

Meta-Analysis of Airport Noise and Hedonic Property Values

2004· article· en· W1517766639 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jon P. Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of transport economics and policy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepreciation (economics)Noise (video)Property valueEconometricsResidential propertySpecificationEconomicsAircraft noiseDecibelSample (material)Regression analysisHedonic pricingStatisticsMathematicsComputer scienceMicroeconomicsReal estateTelecommunicationsEconomic geographyNoise reductionFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meta-analysis is applied to the negative relationship between airport noise exposure and residential property values. The effect size in the analysis is the percentage depreciation per decibel increase in airport noise, or the noise discount. Twenty hedonic property value studies are analysed, covering 33 estimates of the noise discount for 23 airports in Canada and the United States. About one-third of the estimates have not been previously reported in the literature or were not included in previous meta-analyses. A meta-regression analysis examines the variability in the noise discounts that might be due to country, year, sample size, model specification, mean property value, data aggregation, or accessibility to airport employment and travel opportunities. The analysis indicates that country and model specification have some effect on the measured noise discount, but the other variables have little systematic effect.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.123
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.123
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.029
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations185
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of transport economics and policySame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207