MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403544765 · doi:10.1080/02673037.2024.2415056

Collateral damage. Personal lenders and the creation of national mortgage markets in North America, 1890s-1960s

2024· article· en· W4403544765 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueHousing Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollateralCollateral damageSecondary mortgage marketMortgage insuranceBusinessMortgage underwritingShared appreciation mortgageFinancial systemCollateralized mortgage obligationEconomicsFinanceSociologyCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between the 1880s and 1950s, national mortgage markets were created in the United States and Canada. The formative role of institutions and federal governments are well understood. Personal (individual or ‘private’) lenders have been omitted from the narrative although, in the late 1940s, they still provided a quarter of residential mortgages in the United States and two fifths in Canada. Rarely targeted, they were collateral damage, especially, of state initiatives. The distinctive nature of mortgages, secured on real estate, made the creation of national markets difficult. The character of personal loans – local, non-standard, non-amortized, and often informal -- made their assimilation into any supra-local market especially challenging. Their significance declined in waves: the 1900s, 1920s, and then, under government influence, after 1945. They persist in the reduced gaps left by institutions. We should pay them more attention.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

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 studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHousing StudiesSame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207