MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2943366925

The effects of macroeconomic variables towards housing price in Malaysia / Nur Farahin Abdul Rahman

2017· article· en· W2943366925 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abdul Rahman, Nur Farahin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulticollinearityEconometricsInflation (cosmology)Unit root testNormality testEconomicsVariablesTest (biology)Variance inflation factorGross domestic productPrice indexQuarter (Canadian coin)StatisticsPopulationRegression analysisMathematicsStatistical hypothesis testingCointegrationDemographyMacroeconomicsGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past few years, house price in Malaysia has experienced significant price expansion and this situation became a worrying that causes distress especially to the current lenders. This study were an attempt to determine the macroeconomic variables that affected to house price in Malaysia and explored the relationship between the variables with house price. Only three macroeconomic variables such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Inflation Rate (CPI) and Population (Pop) were taken into this study with House Price Index (HPI) as dependent variable. This study consists of 127 observations of quarterly data for each variable starting from 1985 first quarter until 2016 third quarter. All data of HPI, GDP, CPI and Pop were taken or got from DataStream and then there were tested by using EViews8. Those data were analyzedusing descriptive analysis, unit root test, correlation matrix and regression analysis. It were then being analyzed using test on assumption such like normality test, test on variance error term, test on serial correlation of error term (BG Test) and multicollinearity (VIF Test). The results showed only GDP and Pop were positive and significantly related to HPI while CPI was not significant with HPI and only two hypotheses were rejected while the other one was failed to reject. A conclusion were made by given some proofs and evidence from the previous research or journal. Besides that, a few recommendation and limitation were listed in this study for uses and references to the future researchers.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHousing Market and Economics→French-language works237,207→