MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311049266 · doi:10.3390/buildings12122100

The COVID-19 Sentiment and Office Markets: Evidence from China

2022· article· en· W4311049266 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shizhen Wang, Chyi Lin Lee, Yan Song

Bibliographic record

VenueBuildings · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic rentCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)ChinaSentiment analysisIndex (typography)BusinessQuarter (Canadian coin)EconomicsActuarial scienceComputer sciencePolitical scienceGeographyMicroeconomicsMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the impact of COVID-19 sentiment on office building rents and vacancy rates in China with a COVID-19 sentiment index constructed based on Baidu search queries on COVID-19-related keywords. We analyzed the data of office buildings and economic data from 2013 Q3 to 2022 Q2 in seven major Chinese cities with a two-stage Error Correction Model framework. We found that a heightened level of COVID-19 sentiment significantly and adversely affects the Chinese office buildings market. Specifically, office building rents decrease more than 8% if a city is exposed to an increase of one unit of COVID-19 sentiment for an entire quarter. The interaction terms model further reveals that the COVID-19 sentiment has a more substantial impact on office building rents where office vacancy is higher, reflecting an asymmetric effect. The findings here support the fear sentiment hypothesis. The findings suggest that a heightened level of investors’ COVID-19 sentiment resulted in a deterioration of office rents, reinforcing the role of investors’ sentiment in the pricing of office buildings. The findings suggest that investors should consider investor sentiment, particularly COVID-19 sentiment, in their decision-making.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuildingsSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207