Golf courses and home values in California’s Central valley
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the net effect of golf courses’ proximity on home sale prices in Kern County, California. Design/methodology/approach A spatial Durbin error model is used with sales price data for 1,693 homes sold in Kern County in the third quarter of 2018. This paper compares 90 different spatial econometric models using Bayesian techniques to produce posterior model probabilities which guided model selection and the number of neighbors to use. Findings The results show that significant spatial dependence exists in home values in Kern County. Point estimates indicate that homes abutting golf courses are valued at less than those which are not. This study also finds that the farther away from golf courses the average home is, the higher its value. Originality/value This study contributes to the existing literature in three dimensions. First, this paper analyzes whether proximity to golf courses impacts home values in Kern County where a study of this nature has not been conducted. Second, the analysis uses transaction data for 2018 which was a period when the sport’s popularity was fading and golf courses closing. Third, Bayesian model comparison techniques are used to select the appropriate model.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".