MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023926649 · doi:10.18280/ijdne.150216

Effect of Green Areas Density on Real Estate Price in Ramadi City

2020· article· en· W3023926649 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmed Saeed, Luay Mullahwaish

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Baghdad
KeywordsReal estateGeographyArchitectural engineeringBusinessEngineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban green spaces are among most important indicators of amenities, which include providing entertainment, aesthetic enjoyment and environmental quality.However, most of these values lack their relationship to market prices, which leads to gradual overruns of those areas through urban sprawl.As a result, there is a need to obtain quantitative information on implicit and non-market advantages and benefits of urban green areas that have been classified in Ramadi into three categories.Main procedure is to integrate real estate that is bought and sold on market with convenience values and that people are willing to pay money to live near local comfort environment.Statistical models that stakeholders use can then be used to identify those green environmental facilities.It should be possible to determine monetary value of benefits provided by green spaces.Research was conducted in city of Ramadi, which is experiencing a large difference in real estate prices, which facilitates application of statistical models to evaluate green spaces.Results clearly affirmed positive effects of green spaces in urban areas on values of neighboring homes, and highlighted preferences of investors and residents alike.Independent variables were area of green space, distance from green scene, duration of access to park and public green space, and percentage of urban green areas.Moreover, variables of land use intensity and density of educational environment proved to be of great importance in model.As a result, recommendations provide insight into stakeholders and policy makers involved in urban planning.

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)0.001
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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and EcodynamicsSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207