MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1592676125 · doi:10.1111/roiw.12229

Alternative Approaches to Commercial Property Price Indexes for Tokyo

2016· article· en· W1592676125 on OpenAlexaff
Erwin Diewert, Chihiro Shimizu

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Income and Wealth · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepreciation (economics)EconomicsBalance sheetPrice indexProperty (philosophy)Asset (computer security)Real estateValue (mathematics)ProductivityEconometricsMicroeconomicsMacroeconomicsFinanceCapital formationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper studies the problems associated with the construction of price indexes for commercial properties that could be used in the System of National Accounts. Property price indexes are required for the stocks of commercial properties in the balance sheets and related price indexes for the land and structure components of a commercial property are required in the balance sheet accounts for the calculation of the Multifactor Productivity of the Commercial Property Industry. The paper uses a variant of the builder's model that has been used to construct Residential Property Price Indexes. Geometric depreciation rates are estimated for commercial offices in Tokyo using assessment data for REIT. The problems associated with the decomposition of property value into land and structure components are addressed. The problems associated with depreciating capital expenditures on buildings and with measuring the loss of asset value due to early retirement of the structure are also addressed.

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)0.017
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.143 · 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

Citations28
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Income and WealthSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207