MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2530462492

패널연립방정식을 이용한 오피스 시장 예측에 관한 실증연구

2016· article· ko· W2530462492 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
전해정

Bibliographic record

Venue대한건축학회 논문집 - 계획계 · 2016
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Academic Research Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRentingUnemployment rateUnemploymentProduct (mathematics)EconomicsQuarter (Canadian coin)Labour economicsBusinessEngineeringMathematicsEconomic growthGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyzed and predicted the office market by composing a panel simultaneous equation using office data and macroeconomic variables of downtown area of Seoul-si, Gangnam district, and Mapo/Yeouido district from second quarter of 2003 to 4th quarter of 2014. This study set office vacancy rate, office maintenance fee, CD interest rate, and index of industrial product as the influencing variables on office rental price, and set office rental price, commercial building start results, and unemployment rate as the influencing variables on office vacancy rate. According to the analysis result, it was identified that vacancy rate and CD interest rate make statistically negative effect and maintenance fee makes positive effect on office rental price, and whereas rental price fell 0.016% when vacancy rate increased 1%, the rental price increased by 1.732% when maintenance fee increased 1% and index of industrial product appeared to have very little influence. It was verified that rental price, commercial building start results, and unemployment rate made statistically significant positive effect on office vacancy rate, vacancy rate increased 2.199% when rental price increased 1%, vacancy rate increased 2.285% when building start result increased 1%, and vacance rate increased 1.363% when unemployment rate increased 1%.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue대한건축학회 논문집 - 계획계Same topicDiverse Academic Research AnalysisFrench-language works237,207