MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1825935329 · doi:10.3368/le.87.1.126

Are Housing Bubbles Contagious? A Case Study of Las Vegas and Los Angeles Home Prices

2010· article· en· W1825935329 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLand Economics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVedecká Grantová Agentúra MŠVVaŠ SR a SAV
KeywordsLas vegasQuarter (Canadian coin)DisequilibriumEconomicsHouse priceEconometricsGeographyMetropolitan area

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper asks whether speculative house-price pressure in an economic center can spill into related housing markets. In other words, are bubbles contagious? I develop a theoretical model that allows for speculative price appreciation to spread from one market to another. I estimate an error-correction model using quarterly housing data for Las Vegas and Los Angeles and fundamental market variables from 1978 Quarter 2 through 2008 Quarter 1. Las Vegas prices show significant persistence and adjust slowly to disequilibrium. Contagious price and income growth from the Los Angeles market sustained by naïve expectations contributed to the bubble that formed in Las Vegas. <i>(JEL C32, R21)</i>

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.187 · 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