MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The birth of the housing consumer in the United States, 1918–1960

2009· article· en· W2055775743 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Consumer Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt History and Market Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Consumption (sociology)Real estateFinanceBusinessProduction (economics)State (computer science)Financial servicesConsumer spendingEconomicsMarketingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Between 1918 and 1960, those Americans who were able to buy a home learned to think and act as housing consumers. By 1960, the typical couple purchased a finished dwelling from a speculative builder instead of hiring the services of a contractor. Builders now produced for an anonymous market. They learned how to sell, and buyers learned to expect, a comprehensive and standardized package of services that included long‐term financing. Such financing required, and buttressed, a Fordist regime of mass production and consumption, and was promoted after 1934 by a new federal agency. It stabilized the economy by pushing families to make long‐range spending plans, while shaping their pattern of monthly expenditures. Increasingly, Americans came to think of homes as commodities, as investments and as means of self‐expression. They enacted these assumptions by browsing through model homes, by making elaborate financial calculations, by borrowing and by taking on home repair and improvement projects. These changes were promoted by the real estate industry and the state, and were soon accepted for the comfort and convenience they offered.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Consumer StudiesSame topicArt History and Market AnalysisFrench-language works237,207