MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762262295 · doi:10.1111/roiw.12443

Alternative Land‐Price Indexes for Commercial Properties in Tokyo

2019· article· en· W2762262295 on OpenAlexaff
Erwin Diewert, Chihiro Shimizu

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Income and Wealth · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReal estateHedonic regressionDepreciation (economics)Database transactionPrice indexEconomicsIndex (typography)EconometricsHedonic indexReal estate investment trustHedonic pricingRegression analysisTransaction dataInvestment (military)Industrial production indexAgricultural economicsDatabaseFinanceMacroeconomicsMicroeconomicsStatisticsComputer scienceMathematicsProduction (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The System of National Accounts (SNA) requires separate estimates for the land and structure components of a commercial property. Using transactions data for the sales of office buildings in Tokyo, a hedonic regression model (the “builder’s model”) was estimated and this model generated an overall property price index as well as subindexes for the land and structure components of the office buildings. The builder’s model was also estimated using appraisal data on office building real estate investment trusts (REITs) for Tokyo. These hedonic regression models also generated estimates for net depreciation rates, which can be compared. Finally, the Japanese government constructs annual official land prices for commercial properties based on appraised values. The paper compares these official land prices with the land prices generated by the hedonic regression models based on transactions data and on REIT data. The results reveal that commercial property indexes based on appraisal and assessment prices lag behind the indexes based on transaction prices.

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 score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Income and WealthSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207