The accuracy of housing forecasting in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forecasting is an integral part of all business planning, and forecasting the outlook for housing is of interest to many firms in the housing construction sector. This research measures the performance of a number of industry forecasting bodies; this is done to provide users with an indicator of the value of housing forecasting undertaken in Australia. The accuracy of housing commencement forecasts of three Australian organisations – the Housing Industry Association (HIA), the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry (IPC) and BIS‐Shrapnel – is examined through the empirical analysis of their published forecasts supplemented by qualitative data in the form of opinions elicited from several industry “experts” employed in these organisations. Forecasting performance was determined by comparing the housing commencement forecast with the actual data collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on an ex‐post basis. Although the forecasts cover different time periods, the level of accuracy is similar, at around 11‐13 per cent for four‐quarter‐ahead forecasts. In addition, national forecasts are more accurate than forecasts for individual states. This is the first research that has investigated the accuracy of both private and public sector forecasting of housing construction in Australia. This allows users of the information to better understand the performance of various forecasting organisations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".