MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782953412 · doi:10.5555/0927-7544.25.2.409

Asymmetric Behavior in Nominal and Real Housing Prices: Evidence from Emerging and Advanced Economies

2017· article· en· W2782953412 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christophe André, Nikolaos Antonakakis, Rangan Gupta, Mulatu Fekadu Zerihun

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Real Estate Literature · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsBoomEmerging marketsAsymmetryMonetary economicsQuarter (Canadian coin)House priceEconometricsPrice indexNonparametric statisticsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article, we investigate asymmetry in nominal and real housing price series from eleven emerging and twenty advanced economies using the nonparametric Triples test (Randles et al., 1980), which allows identification of different types of asymmetries in economic cycles. We find asymmetry in fewer emerging than advanced economies. In more than half of the latter, nominal prices reach peaks faster than troughs (positive steepness asymmetry), suggesting the presence of downward nominal rigidities. Nominal price asymmetry is found only in slightly over a quarter of the emerging economies. Hence, nominal housing price increases are more likely to be followed by symmetric price falls in emerging than in advanced countries. Regarding real housing prices, peaks are higher than troughs (positive deepness asymmetry) in half of the advanced economies, suggesting the presence of price overshooting during booms, but less undershooting during busts. Weaker evidence of similar asymmetry is found in emergi...

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)0.006
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Real Estate LiteratureSame topicComplex Systems and Time Series AnalysisFrench-language works237,207