Bibliographic record
Abstract
Highlights •The new residential and renovation construction markets in the US and the Eurozone were valued at $338.7 billion (305.5 billion euros) and $673.3 billion dollars (614.4 billion euros), respectively, in 2014. •In Europe, 55% of the value of the new residential and renovation construction markets in 2014 was in renovation; in the US, this figure was 30%. •The housing construction market in Europe is still subdued, in part due to the effects of the global financial crisis and the tepid nature of European economies. Nevertheless, residential housing construction is projected to improve by 2.4% in 2015 and by 4.3% in 2017. •Housing completions achieved record levels in the Russian Federation in 2014, with nearly 1.1 million new dwellings put in place, an increase of 20.3% from 2013. •The US housing market continues to stabilize and improve in all its sectors, but it is still hindered by slow economic growth, slow household formation, student debt, underemployment, declining real median incomes, and a constrained housing inventory. •High-value houses and the multi-family market exhibited above-average construction and sales in the US in 2014, but single-family construction remains substantially below its historical average. •Canada’s economic fundamentals improved in late 2014; they are projected to continue to improve in 2015 but decline slightly (from 2015 levels) in 2016. Forecasts suggest stable housing demand and starts in 2015 and 2016.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".