MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971642510 · doi:10.1177/2399808319871308

Household-level dynamics in residential location choice modelling with a latent auction method

2019· article· en· W2971642510 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jason Hawkins, Adam Weiss, Khandker Nurul Habib

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning B Urban Analytics and City Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDifferential (mechanical device)Work (physics)Residential areaEconometricsLatent class modelProcess (computing)EconomicsMicroeconomicsComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A longstanding deficiency in the modelling of residential location choices is the common assumption of a single household decision-maker. This paper contributes to a growing literature on methods to capture intra-household dynamics in this decision process. A latent auction approach is employed to estimate a residential location choice model for the Greater Toronto Area. The present work extends the consideration of individual utility factors beyond simple commute time, to include frequency of automobile use, transit use, and the cost of parking at the destination. Results suggest a weakening differential between male and female roles in the residential location choice, as multi-worker households are increasing in response to increasing costs of living. The strength of the latent auction model is confirmed as a means of linking bid-rent with observed market prices. Several conclusions are drawn out of the model results, including a pattern of larger households preferring the larger and cheaper houses characteristic of suburban areas of the Greater Toronto Area.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Planning B Urban Analytics and City ScienceSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207