Calibration and evaluation of Quigley’s hybrid housing price model in Microsoft Excel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quigley derived his hybrid price model to improve the precision of predicted prices of sold homes by statistically merging data of resold homes in a repeat sales model with that of once-sold homes in a single sales hedonic price model. The literature has few applications of the hybrid model aside from those by Quigley and his collaborators. Two reasons for this underuse may be its computational intensiveness and its marginal empirical improvement in comparison with two other models. This paper first demystifies this computational intensiveness by calibrating models in Microsoft Excel with transferable procedures into other software. It second evaluates the hybrid price model's empirical improvement as a reason for its underuse by predicting prices of 2,559 sold and resold homes observed in two inner-city neighbourhoods in Windsor, Ontario, during a 30-year period. The results as hypothesized are its lower standard errors of regression coefficients and higher simple R-squared than those of a single sales hedonic price model. Moreover, the hybrid model's predictions have higher correlations than those of the single sales model with not only in-sample observed prices or changes in prices but also out-of-sample ones. The conclusion speculates in plans for future research about reasons for two models' similar or dissimilar regression coefficients and standard errors predicting correspondingly similar or dissimilar sale prices of homes through time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".