MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306766604 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15100472

A Time Series Analysis of Judicial Foreclosures in Spain

2022· article· en· W4306766604 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rafael González‐Val

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinisterio de Ciencia e Innovación
KeywordsForeclosureUnit rootRecessionFinancial crisisEconomicsSeries (stratigraphy)Augmented Dickey–Fuller testUnit (ring theory)Unit root testDemographic economicsEconometricsKeynesian economicsCointegrationFinanceMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There was an unprecedented wave of foreclosures and evictions in Spain after the 2008 global financial crisis. The subsequent Great Recession had strong economic, social and environmental consequences. This paper explores the frequency of permanent shocks in foreclosure quarterly rates (defined as the number of judicial foreclosures per 1000 inhabitants) for 50 Spanish provinces (NUTS 3 regions) during the period from 2001 (Q1) to 2019 (Q4) using time series analysis. We examine whether the foreclosure rate is a stationary series, exhibits a unit root or is stationary around a process subject to structural breaks. A clear finding from this analysis is that not all shocks have transitory effects on the foreclosure rate. The percentage of unit root rejections is around 40%, thus, providing the evidence of both stationarity around occasional shocks that have permanent effects, and of a unit root, where all shocks have a permanent effect on the foreclosure rate. We also test for unit roots allowing for the presence of one and two structural breaks. Most of the structural breaks are positive, and the majority are grouped from 2008 onwards, coinciding with the financial crisis and the subsequent collapse of the Spanish housing bubble. We also find a later decrease in foreclosures in some regions that can be related to the effectiveness of the Code of Good Practice for banks and financial institutions approved in 2012. Nevertheless, the level of the foreclosure rate time series has not returned to the pre-2008 level in any case.

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)0.004
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207