MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586377461 · doi:10.5736/jares.24.2_139

Empirical analysis regarding the sudden rise factor of real estate price

2010· article· en· W2586377461 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dong-Hwan Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Japanese Journal of Real Estate Sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReal estateEconomicsLand priceEconomic bubbleGranger causalityStock (firearms)Asset (computer security)Stock priceCapitalization rateFinancial economicsMonetary economicsReal estate investment trustEconometricsAgricultural economicsFinanceSeries (stratigraphy)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the late of 80's, Korea has been experienced rapid increases in land prices. For example, Korea's total land asset price reached to the amount which can purchase Canada more than twice at the end of 2008. Purpose of this study is to find how Korean land price will be stabilized and what exact reason of rise is. As the first step, in this paper, I tried to compare Japanese real estate bubble period and Korea's sudden rise period through the use of time series analysis techniques (Such as the Granger causality test) with macroeconomic variables of each country. Then I try to consider whether Korean real estate price follows Japanese bubble period. At the result, price, real economy and stock price of each country give same effect to the land price of Japan and Korea in the period of land price rise. However, interest rate and money supply show different effect which is caused by different economical back ground of Japan and Korea.

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)0.007
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
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 integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Japanese Journal of Real Estate SciencesSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207