MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2353566531

The Main Determinants of Chinese House Turnover and Price:An Analysis of Effects of the Policies on Housing Market

2012· article· en· W2353566531 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chen Xun

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chongqing Technology and Business University · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsPrice elasticity of supplyPrice indexHouse priceMonetary economicsQuarter (Canadian coin)Monetary policyPer capitaOrder (exchange)Simultaneous equations modelSupply and demandLabour economicsPrice elasticity of demandMacroeconomicsMicroeconomicsFinanceEconometrics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzed the quarterly data of Chinese macro economy,housing market and land market from the first quarter of 2001 to the fourth quarter of 2010 through unit root test,simultaneous equations model and three stage least squares(3SLS) based on macro-policy for regulating housing market in the last ten years.The results show that the main determinants which affect Chinese house turnover in turn are house price,money supply(M2),land supply quantity,per capita disposable income of urban residents and completed residential areas,that the main determinants which affect Chinese house price in turn are GDP,land price and secondhand house price,but CPI is not one of the main factors that push up the house price,and that administrative means and fiscal policies on controlling house price are effective but their effect is not strong(elasticity-0.011),however,monetary policies on controlling house turnover are strongly effective(elasticity 2.965).Thus we suggest that the regulation for housing prices should mainly consider monetary policies and that regional housing prices and housing turnover growth rate should coincide with regional GDP growth rate.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chongqing Technology and Business UniversitySame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207