MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033618386 · doi:10.1080/09599910110039905

Size and proximity effects of primary schools on surrounding house values

2001· article· en· W2033618386 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
François Des Rosiers, Antonio Laganà, Marius Thériault

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Property Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsValue (mathematics)StatisticsEconometricsRange (aeronautics)MathematicsGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper deals with measuring the effect of both size and proximity of primary schools on surrounding residential values, using hedonics for that purpose. The data bank consists of a subset of some 4300 single-detached, owner-occupied housing units transacted all over the Quebec Urban Community territory between January 1990 and December 1991. Several functional forms are tested and up to 42 descriptors are used. Some 116 primary schools are considered in the analysis, with size ranging from 52 to 840 students. Findings tend to confirm the non-monotonicity of both the price–distance and price–size relationships with respect to primary schools. In that respect, performing a gamma transformation on either size and distance variables provides consistent estimates of critical school size and optimal distance to nearest school. The value-minimizing size is in the 300–450 pupil range while the optimal, or value-maximizing, distance is between 300 and 500 metres from the nearest school, that is, roughly, a 9–15-minute walk from home.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations72
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Property ResearchSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207