A Study of Regional Real Estate Market Differences and Convergence under Panel Data Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the differences and convergence of regional real estate markets based on panel statistics of 28 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the central government in China from 2010 to 2023.Relevant variables such as urban construction land area, population and economic growth are set and the data are processed.The data show that the degree of industrial convergence and circulation costs have a positive spatial correlation and an upward trend from 2015 to 2021.From the viewpoint of regional real estate market divergence, the proportion of the real estate industry in GDP has remained above 5% since 2015, and this proportion is larger in the eastern region, for example, it was 8.74% in Beijing in 2015, but it has slightly decreased in some provinces and cities.The proportion in central and western provinces and cities has been rising faster year by year.The extreme deviation and standard deviation coefficient of the eastern region are relatively large, with the extreme deviation of the eastern region being 4.35% and the standard deviation coefficient being 1.45529 in 2021, indicating that the internal development is not balanced.From the analysis of convergence, the rate of convergence in the absolute convergence test is 3.66%, and the rate of convergence in the conditional convergence test is 2.89%, with a half-life of about 23.8 years.It indicates that the regional real estate market differences are shrinking, showing a trend of convergence, but the convergence process is relatively slow, which provides an important basis for an in-depth understanding of the characteristics of the regional real estate market.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".