Coming of Age: Renovation Premiums in Housing Markets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We rely on novel textual analysis of real estate listings and identify renovated dwellings in a data set of Norwegian transactions to estimate the renovation premium in an urban housing market. The renovation premium is estimated by classical regression approaches as well as random forests models. The strength of the latter is that it allows for a more complex interplay between the renovation premium and explanatory variables. We find a significant positive renovation premium of 5-7 percent for renovated dwellings and a negative premium of 9-10 percent for unmaintained/neglected dwellings. These averages mask significant variation in these premiums over time. In particular, there is a counter-cyclical effect. In a hedonic price model, omitting renovation has implications for estimated short-term house price growth. We also find that unmaintained dwellings tend to transact more in the fourth quarter, indicating that parts of seasonal price variation reported in the literature are due to compositional variation with respect to renovation. This composition effect tends to bias price movement estimates downward, if uncontrolled for, as unmaintained dwellings tend to transact at a significantly lower price.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".