Towards a taxonomy for real estate and land automated valuation systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Automated valuation models have been in use at least for the last 50 years in both academia and practice, while automated valuation recently re-emerged as very important with the rise of digital infrastructure. The current state of the art, therefore, justifies the dual contributions of this paper: organising existing knowledge and providing a new framework. Design/methodology/approach This paper provides much-needed analysis and synthesis of the accumulated body of knowledge by proposing an updated classification of automated valuation approaches based on two criteria, and a taxonomy adapted to new trends. The latter requires a paradigm shift from models to automated valuation systems. Both classification and taxonomy arose after literature review. Findings This paper provides a framework for an explicit context under which automated valuation is carried out. To do so, authors propose a definition of automation valuation systems; contextualise the differences among theories, approaches, methods, models and systems present in automated valuation and introduce a classification of automated valuation approaches and a non-hierarchical taxonomy of automated valuation systems. Research limitations/implications Perhaps, a systematic literature review process instead of a selective list of 100 references could additionally validate the proposed classification and taxonomy. Practical implications The new framework, underlying various dimensions of the automated valuation process, can help practitioners surpass judging models based purely on their predictive accuracy. Also, the automated valuation system is a more generic term that can better accommodate future research coming from a multitude of disciplines, more diverse business areas and enlarged variety of practical users. Originality/value This is the first paper that develops a taxonomy of automated valuation systems.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".