Predicting housing construction period based on a cox proportional hazard model––an empirical study of housing completions in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The completion progress of residential development projects and the length of construction are frequently discussed in the construction industry, but rarely studied by urban modellers. Nonetheless, a realistic reflection of housing supply processes is important for urban microsimulation and land use modelling. To predict the dwelling units generated over space and time, this paper decomposes the housing supply process into two major components: housing starts and completions, the nature and modelling logic of which are quite different. This paper deals with the latter segment, aiming to answer the question of: how long will it take to complete construction of new dwellings? A Cox Proportional Hazard (CPH) Model is employed to examine the “survival” rate of residential building projects and the probabilistic distribution of construction periods. Narrowing down the scope of research, this study investigates housing completions at the individual project level, and discusses the impact of structure type, surrounding land use, and accessibility on the housing completion rate. The Cities of Toronto, Hamilton, and Brampton in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) were selected to conduct the empirical study, with each representing different types of urban form to test model compatibility. The hazard models show good performance in replicating completion rates, and the impact of each factor on hazard ratio indicates that, single detached dwelling units with relatively homogeneous land use have the shortest completion time. This study could provide one component of a comprehensive framework for modelling housing supply, especially in urban microsimulation systems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".