MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183976083

EXAMINATION OF CLIENT INFLUENCE ON RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY VALUATION IN ONITSHA, ANAMBRA STATE, NIGERIA

2020· article· en· W3183976083 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joseph Chukwudi Onyejiaka, Raphael O. Sado, Ifeanyichukwu Valentine Nwafor

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValuation (finance)Real estateEstateEnforcementBusinessResidential propertyReal propertyActuarial scienceProperty managementFinanceEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study examined client influence on valuation of residential and commercial properties in Onitsha metropolis, Anambra State, Nigeria. In carrying out the study questionnaires were administered to professional Estate Surveyors and Valuers practicing within the study area in order to obtain relevant data. Ninety-six (96) completed questionnaires were retrieved, and the data collected presented in frequency and percent tables, while validation of hypotheses were analyzed using the Chi-square test method. The study resolved that there are significant levels of influence by clients on valuers during valuation of their residential and commercial properties in Onitsha which has resulted in some effects such as not being able realize such values during actual property transactions, variations in valuation opinions by different valuers on same property, etc. These however, can be curbed through strict enforcement and monitoring of adherence to the uniform valuation standard of the Estate Surveying and Valuation professional body by valuers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207