The impacts of the Canterbury earthquake on the commercial office market in Christchurch, NZ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 22 February 2011 Canterbury earthquake had a devastating impact on Christchurch property with significant damage caused to land and buildings. As at November 2011, around 530 buildings have either been demolished or identified to be demolished in central Christchurch. In addition, around 140 buildings have either been partially demolished or identified to be partially demolished. The broad aims of the research were to (i) examine the nature and extent of the CBD office relocation, (ii) determine occupierís perceptions of the future: their location and space needs post the February earthquake, and the likelihood of relocating back to the CBD after the rebuild, and (iii) find out what occupiers see as the future of the CBD, and how they want this to look. To address these issues, an online survey was developed. Potential respondents were obtained from two sources: 275 suburban office occupier contact details obtained from a physical survey of office occupiers as of August 2011, and 368 contacts obtained from a business database held by CB Richard Ellis. With a 22% response rate, 55% of respondents were relocated CBD occupiers and 45% were existing suburban office occupiers. Results indicate that 66% of respondents have reduced their office size since the earthquakes. Half of businesses are paying less rent than before the earthquake, probably due to 45% of respondents being in poorer quality space. More than a quarter of relocated tenants have signed leases of one year or less, and 27% of businesses are now working out of residential premises. Of the businesses that relocated out of the CBD the biggest group (38%) want to return to the CBD into low-rise buildings of 3 floors or less (80%) that meet Earth Quake codes with good amenities and public transport. The speed of rebuild is important to respondents.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".