Moving Window Approaches for Hedonic Price Estimation: An Empirical Comparison of Modelling Techniques
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
Recognition of the limitations of traditional hedonic models to account for spatial effects has led in recent years to the development and use of spatial econometric and statistical techniques in real estate applications. It seems appropriate, as the number of applications grows, to evaluate the relative ability of some newer approaches in terms of producing accurate spatial predictions. This article compares a selection of techniques to assess their performance. The focus is on moving window approaches that can be conceptualised as sliding neighbourhoods (i.e. soft market segmentations) and that can incorporate spatial dependency effects. Comparison of moving windows regression (MWR), geographically weighted regression (GWR) and moving windows Kriging (MWK) sheds light on the relevance of different spatial effects. Results using Toronto as a case study indicate that market segmentation may be more important than spatial dependencies. The findings suggest practical guidelines with regard to the use of the models investigated.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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