MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404901702 · doi:10.15396/afres2024-025

Legal Foundations of REITs: Lessons for Developing REIT Markets

2024· article· en· W4404901702 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Fiona Toliva, Doğan Tırtıroğlu, Rachael Mirembe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProperty Rights and Legal Doctrine
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMakerere University Business SchoolGovernment of Canada
KeywordsReal estate investment trustBusinessComputer scienceFinancial economicsFinancial systemEconomicsFinanceReal estate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The legal systems of different countries influence the regulations and characteristics of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs). This paper examines, mainly qualitatively, the details of the legal framework that defines the REIT form in developed and developing countries and seeks to identify the ideas and practices that can offer the most benefit to countries like Uganda and other African countries. Using purposive along with qualitative approaches of interviews and focus groups as well as studying legal documents, we find that the differences in REIT laws and regulations in different countries can be explained by the socioeconomic and cultural differences between them, which in turn affects REIT performance in terms of market entry and returns. Thus, formulating tailored legal points could enhance economic efficiency and the growth of REITs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.313 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 topicProperty Rights and Legal DoctrineFrench-language works237,207