MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289711392 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15080341

Promotion Pressures of Local Leaders and Real Estate Investments: China and Leader Heterogeneity

2022· article· en· W4289711392 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhuo Chen, Mingzhi Hu, Zhiyi Qiu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLocal Government Finance and Decentralization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsReal estatePromotion (chess)IncentiveInvestment (military)ChinaBusinessPanel dataLocal DevelopmentCapitalization rateEconomicsFinanceReal estate investment trustMarket economyPolitical scienceSociologyRegional science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chinese local officials have strong incentives to stimulate economic growth in the pursuit of promotion. However, the connection between promotion pressure of local officials and investment in the real estate market has not been rigorously explored. By using the panel data of local leaders (municipal party secretaries or mayors) from 2002 to 2010, this paper investigates the correlations between local leaders’ promotion pressures and growth in real estate investments. Empirical results show that local leaders’ promotion pressures are significantly and positively correlated with the growth of the real estate market. Furthermore, the positive effect of promotion pressure on real estate development is significant if the leader is young or born locally, whereas this effect is insignificant if the leader is older or not a native. Our findings provide new evidence on how local leaders may strategically intervene in local economic activities.

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)0.002
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicLocal Government Finance and DecentralizationFrench-language works237,207