MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2254257473

The determinants of state foreclosure rates: investigating the case of Indiana

2007· article· en· W2254257473 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leslie McGranahan

Bibliographic record

VenueProfitwise · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeclosureQuarter (Canadian coin)State (computer science)EconomicsDemographic economicsBusinessGeographyFinanceMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foreclosure rates are defined as mortgages in the foreclosure process as a percentage of all mortgages. These rates vary fairly dramatically across states. While the average foreclosure rate in the 50 states and the District of Columbia in the second quarter of 2007 was 1.25 percent, these rates ranged from a high of 3.60 percent in Ohio to a low of 0.44 percent in Wyoming. One state that has exhibited high foreclosure rates over the past decade is Indiana. Indiana ranked second highest after Ohio in the second quarter of 2007 with a foreclosure rate of 3.01 percent. The goal of this article is to look at the determinants of state foreclosure rates with particular attention to the set of factors referred to in discussions of Indiana’s high rates. Three primary factors have been responsible for Indiana’s high foreclosure rates: the poor performance of the housing market and economy, the high levels of subprime and FHA borrowing in the state, and the relatively long duration of Indiana foreclosures. However, even after taking these factors into account, Indiana’s foreclosure rates are higher than would be anticipated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProfitwiseSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207