MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3140715397

Tenant Fees Act 2019: A Welcome Reform

2019· article· fr· W3140715397 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel Beswick

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeasehold estateClosing (real estate)ParliamentBusinessLaw and economicsProperty rightsLawEconomicsFinancePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Tenant Fees Act comes into force on 1 June 2019. After my last article in this Review on the Tenant Fees Bill went to press, Parliament made several substantive drafting changes that favour tenants’ interests. These include lowering the tenancy deposit cap to five weeks’ rent; tightening the conditions over the use and refunding of holding deposits; and closing a loophole regarding the charging of default fees. The Act improves on present letting law and will bring a welcome rebalancing of rights and obligations in the tenancy market.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.013
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0280.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.007

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207