Size and Characteristic of Housing Bubbles in China's Major Cities: 1999–2010
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is some disagreement in the published literature regarding the definition and the measurement of housing bubbles in China. Extending the analytical framework of Black et al. (2006), the present paper measures the housing bubbles of China's 35 major cities from the second quarter of 1999 to the second quarter of 2010. The results indicate that the housing bubbles in China's 35 major cities were relatively small in the sample interval, but the bubbles in eastern metropolises, such as Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Hangzhou and Ningbo, have been relatively big since 2005. The changing tendency of housing bubbles in most cities highly corresponds with the changes in real estate policies. This paper decomposes the housing bubbles of the 35 cities, and finds a great proportion of irrational bubbles rather than rational intrinsic bubbles generated by price speculation. Based on empirical analysis, this paper proposes policy recommendations for preventing the generation and expansion of housing bubbles.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it