The Paris OECD-IMF Workshop on Real Estate Price Indexes: Conclusions and Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper summarizes the main ideas suggested in OECD-IMF Workshop on Real Estate Price Indexes which was held in Paris, November 6-7, 2006. The paper discusses possible uses and target indexes for real estate price indexes and notes that a major problem is that it is not possible to exactly match the quality of dwelling units over time due to the fact that the housing stock changes in quality due to renovations and depreciation. Four alternative methods for constructing real estate price indexes are discussed: the repeat sales model; the use of assessment information along with property sale information; stratification methods and hedonic methods. The paper notes that the typical hedonic regression method may suffer from specification bias and suggests a way forward. Problems with the user cost method for pricing the services of owner occupied housing are also discussed.
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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.008 |
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".