MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784418308 · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.274722

Inequality, Frictional Assignment and Home-ownership

2018· article· en· W2784418308 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Allen Head, Huw Lloyd‐Ellis, Derek Stacey

Bibliographic record

VenueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRentingStock (firearms)EconomicsInequalityPoint (geometry)Labour economicsBusinessDemographic economicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A theory of the distribution of housing tenure in a city is developed. Het- erogeneous houses are built by a competitive development industry and either rented competitively or sold to households which dier in their income and sort over housing types through a directed search process. In the absence of either nancial or supply restrictions, higher income households are more likely to own and lower quality housing is more likely to be rented. The composition of the housing stock and the rate of home-ownership depend on the distribution of income, the age of the population and construction costs. When calibrated to match average features of housing markets within U.S. cities, observed dif- ferences in these variables account well for the variation observed across cities in home-ownership and the price-rent ratio. A policy designed to improve housing aordability signicantly raises home-ownership among lower income households while lowering the quality supplied to high income households.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.158 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)Same topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207