MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916957661 · doi:10.1080/02723638.2019.1567202

The price ripple effect in the Vancouver housing market

2019· article· en· W2916957661 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Idaliya Grigoryeva, David Ley

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Geography · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMetropolitan areaReal estateRippleHouse priceSalience (neuroscience)EpicenterEconomicsDemographic economicsGeographyMonetary economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attempts to model the dynamic characteristics of a housing market include examining the spatial diffusion of price changes from an epicenter through a regional or national network of geographic units. Less common has been the study of a ripple effect of price changes within a single metropolitan area, with implications for the erosion of residential affordability. Such trends have particular salience within the Vancouver metropolitan area, the least affordable housing market in North America. Using quarterly price data from local real estate boards, we examine price changes through municipal regions from 2005–2017, a period including several externally-induced price shocks. Several techniques test for a ripple effect in price movements. A time lag of three months consistently exists in the communication of price shocks from an originating epicenter to other parts of the metropolitan region, with longer lags with several more distant municipalities, confirming the presence of an intra-metropolitan ripple effect.

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 score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.163 · 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

Citations51
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban GeographySame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207