MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Analysis of China’s Housing Purchase Situation Based on Real Estate Policies

2024· article· en· W4394845699 on OpenAlexaff
Yinian Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Economics Management and Political Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsCanadian Council on International Law
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPurchasing powerReal estateChinaPurchasingContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)BusinessAffect (linguistics)Power (physics)EconomicsMarket economyEconomic policyFinanceMarketingMacroeconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because of some new policies in China, the government has begun to lower house prices and encourage people to buy more houses, at least in Anhui. However, the reduced housing prices have not led to an increase in residential housing sales. So the author analyzes the reasons for the current insufficient purchasing power of Chinese residents' housing based on existing literature and data. The result shows that, in the context of contemporary society, personal income levels have significantly decreased. This decline is influenced by various factors, including tax policy reforms and the profound impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the global economy, including China. At the same time, the hedging ability of the real estate industry has also decreased, which hinders the improvement of personal purchasing power. Although the real estate market has shown strong risk resistance and has gradually recovered from the initial impact of the epidemic, the lingering impact and uncertainty still affect individual purchasing power.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Economics Management and Political SciencesSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207