MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1870692829 · doi:10.5539/ass.v11n24p26

Exploring the Elements of Housing Price in Malaysia

2015· article· en· W1870692829 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Atasya Osmadi, Ernawati Mustafa Kamal, Hasnanywati Hassan, Hamizah Abdul Fattah

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This informative study explores the elements of housing price in Malaysia and found the price is affected by many factors. This study of great practical significance has shown that house prices are determined by the demand for attributes, not only of the dwelling units themselves, but also of the region in which the units are located. There are many structural, neighborhood and locational attributes that could have brought impacts on house prices (Chin, Chau, & Ng, 2004). Structural characteristics, location-specific factors, and neighbourhood characteristics may define various sub-markets. Sub-markets may be defined by structure type (e.g. single-family detached, row house, town home, and condominium), by structural characteristics (property age housing consumers may have strong preferences for newly constructed properties or for historic properties), or by neighbourhood characteristics (e.g., public education and public safety). Results show that the housing price in Malaysia evidently depends on population, demand and supply, location, physical characteristic, accessibility, developer, cost of material and income. It is also influenced by neighbourhood factors as people nowadays will likely choose a better neighbourhood. These factors determine whether the housing price will be high or low. In summary, the government must take an active role to monitor and take appropriate measures to control property prices.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.141 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations47
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207