MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1950996903

A CRITIQUE OF THE BRITISH COLUMBIA RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE INDUSTRY’S USE OF DUAL AGENCY

2011· article· en· W1950996903 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Drouillard

Bibliographic record

VenueAppeal: Review of Current Law and Law Reform · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReal estateAgency (philosophy)Dual (grammatical number)BusinessEstateReal estate developmentFinancePublic relationsPublic administrationPolitical scienceSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many of us purchase homes and deal with real estate agents in the process. Furthermore, the purchase of a home is often one of the most substantial investments a person makes. In light of this, real estate agency ought to be of tremendous concern to anyone interested in consumer protection law and reform. Surprisingly, reform in this area appears to have been left largely up to regulators and real estate industry representatives who engage in a private dialogue that tends to be inaccessible to the public. The intention of this article is to expose the public to this dialogue and spur further academic discussion into the workings of this industry.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAppeal: Review of Current Law and Law ReformSame topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207