MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407240089 · doi:10.1142/s3029104625500016

Forecasting Residential Real Estate Prices via Machine Learning for Taizhou City of Zhejiang Province in China

2025· article· en· W4407240089 on OpenAlexaff
Bingzi Jin, Xiaojie Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Urban Futures · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsAdvanced Micro Devices (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaReal estateBusinessGeographyFinanceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Chinese real estate market has grown at such a fast rate over the last several decades, up to the present decline patterns that began at the end of 2021. As a result, projecting future property prices has become more challenging for investors and the government. This is a result of the state of the economy right now. In this work, we examine monthly residential property prices for Taizhou City, Zhejiang Province, China, using Gaussian process regressions with a variety of kernels and basis functions, spanning from April 2015 to the July 2024. Our forecasting activities employ estimated models, which we train using a combination of cross-validation and Bayesian optimisations for endowing the constructed model with good flexibility. The models that were created were successful in precisely predicting the prices from September 2022 to July 2024 outside the sample. These models had a relative root mean square error of 0.1120%, a root mean square error of 19.1482, a mean absolute error of 14.3875, and a correlation coefficient of 99.986%. It is plausible that our findings may be used alone or in combination with further projections to formulate conjectures about fluctuations in the residential real estate prices and conduct additional policy analysis, which will help investors and policymakers in better understanding the evolving market condition.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.237
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 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

Citations27
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Urban FuturesSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207