MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128897687 · doi:10.1111/1540-6229.12341

Diffused effort, asset heterogeneity, and real estate brokerage

2021· article· en· W3128897687 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReal Estate Economics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic theories and models
Canadian institutionsDouglas College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterintuitiveAsset (computer security)ExternalityEconomicsAgency (philosophy)Real estateMicroeconomicsListing (finance)Agency costFinanceFinancial economicsComputer scienceShareholder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We generalize the classic Williams (1998, Review of Financial Studies , 11 , 239–280) brokerage model by introducing diffused effort and asset heterogeneity. The term “diffused effort” refers to the fact that an agent can cross‐utilize effort spending on one listing to another . One counterintuitive finding in Williams' paper is the absence of the agency problem . As a special case in our model, we recover the agency problem. We demonstrate the positive externality due to the diffused effort and show it depends on the agent's inventory size. Hence, there is a trade‐off between agents' effort committed to existing listings and expanding network size by soliciting new listings.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.199 · 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