MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Agent‐Based Simulation of Urban Residential Dynamics and Land Rent Change in a Gentrifying Area of Boston

2008· article· en· W2114269004 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy Jackson, Benjamin Forest, Raja Sengupta

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions in GIS · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGentrificationWork (physics)Process (computing)Computer scienceDynamics (music)MacroEconomic geographyAgent-based modelScale (ratio)Consumption (sociology)Architectural engineeringSociologyEconomicsCivil engineeringGeographyArtificial intelligenceEngineeringSocial scienceCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Certain complex processes are most effectively modeled not on the macro‐scale, but from the bottom‐up, by simulating the decisions of individual entities, or agents. This study uses an agent‐based modeling (ABM) approach to simulate residential dynamics in an area of Boston that has increasingly experienced gentrification in the past decades. The model is instantiated using basic empirical data and uses simple decision‐making rules, differentiated into four classes, to simulate the process of residential dynamics. The model employs the consumption explanation of the cause of gentrification, which emphasizes the choices of individuals drawn to urban amenities, while testing the production explanation, which suggests that major investments from the public and private sphere attract and explain gentrification. Verification shows that the processes in the model work according to its construction, simulates complexity and emergent phenomena, and may be a valuable explanatory tool for understanding and learning about some processes underlying gentrification.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations53
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions in GISSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207