MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2368438732

Building property management of condominium apartment in Canada

2011· article· en· W2368438732 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
LI Guoqin

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Problems · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessApartmentProperty managementRemunerationProperty (philosophy)Service (business)ShareholderMarketizationVariety (cybernetics)Building managementPublic relationsAccountingMarketingFinanceCorporate governanceReal estateLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Condominium Board of Directors in Canada has some distinctive features in both the internal structure and the external environment.Firstly,condominiums are registered as legal personality of corporations in Canada.The building owners' organization is called Board of Directors.Building owners are similar with shareholders and condominium management is regarded as an economic behavior which is embedded in the society.Secondly,the building property manager has been defined as an agent of the board of directors.They don't have any other reward except remuneration.Thirdly,the property management supplies their services through a variety of professional service companies.In reference to Canadian experience,the most fundamental thing is that property management should be defined as an economic activity and must be segregated from social management.First of all,we must differentiate building owners' status as property owner and the commercial entity status of the condominium.Meanwhile we have to clarify the role and develop professional ethics for property manager as agent of Board of Directors.Thirdly,we must establish and improve external property management marketing service systems so as to realize the marketization of the property service system.

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 score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.136 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban ProblemsSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207