L’économique de l’habitation : une revue de lalittérature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article has a two-fold purpose: first, to offer as complete an inventory aspossible of the literature written on the economics of housing, classifying thisliterature according to subject matter (in this sense, the article takes on theappearance of an annotated bibliography); and second, to take a hard look at thepresent state of economic theory in this field. The article is divided into the following six sections: 1) existing surveys;2) studies related to long-term cycles in residential construction; 3) theoriesexplaining short-term fluctuations; 4) verbal models; 5) econometric models;6) other studies. Some emphasis has been given to the authors' two principal conclusions. In theiropinion, the "residual" vision and the countercyclical hypothesis have not beenadequately tested in the past. Furthermore, the authors bring to light evidence,both theoretical and factual, which contradicts this theory (see Section 3). Then,in Section 5, the authors attempt to show how econometric models, except in the mostrecent papers, fail to take into account, adequately, the relationships between thehousing and mortgage markets and the builders. In addition, it is contended thatthese models are not truly representational of the whole sector, in that they areoften nothing more than simple demand or supply equations, or, even worse, neitherone nor the other.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".