The subjective and objective evaluation of accomodation in Latvia in the aftercrisis period
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most important wishes of people concentrate on the tendency to reach vitally significant factors (well-being, security, \nsustainability) that are realized through various channels – education, employment, family, material prosperity a.o.). \nOne of the basic needs of an individual is a need for a physical shelter or a dwelling, yet, a dwelling is not only a roof over the head - it is also \nan indicator of the life quality. In its turn, it includes also the location of the dwelling, its technical conditions, as well as the living space – all \ninfluences the quality of life. Thereby the satisfaction with the dwelling can be linked with the satisfaction with life and well-being. \nOn the side of the state accessibility to a qualitative dwelling is important to diminish depopulation, to promote the growth of the nation, to \nensure labour force mobility, development of new work places as well as decrease of poverty and rejection. Taking the above mentioned into \nconsideration The Latvian National development plan till 2030 is aimed at providing all households with dwellings that correspond to high standards \nof energoeffectivity, building, safety and conveniences (Cross-Sectoral Coordination Centre Republic of Latvia, 2020). \nThe aim of the article is, basing on the two recent surveys – 2011. and 2016. – EQLS (European Quality of Life Survey) inquiry data, to evaluate \nthe situation of the levels of satisfaction with accomodation and tendences in Latvia that in the survey are included in the section Housing. The \ninformation is supplemented with Latvia official statistical data that characterize the indicators of the objective residential situation thus drafting \nthe main problem questions of Latvia main residential market for further research. \nDescriptive and conclusive statistical analysis methods were employed in the research. The official statistics of Eurofond EQLS 2011 and 2016 \nsurvey databasis from the UK Data Archive, Latvia Central statistical office and Latvia Land Register as well as scientific literature were used. \nTo reach the aims the following tasks were set: \nTo make analysis of the scientific literature, \nTo evaluate the indicators of the EQLS surveys and correlations among them, \nTo offer characteristic tendences of residences and the residential market situation in Latvia in 2010.-2019. \nIt was stated in the research that satisfaction with the accomodation statistically significantly influences the quality of life. According to the data \nof 2016 in conformity with the general self-evaluation of inhabitants in the aftercrisis period the qualitative indicators about dwellings have \ngradually improved. The data of official statistics reveal quantitative and qualitative positive changes in the residential situation, the activity of the \nresidential market has increased as well. Nevertheless, in Latvia a considerable regional contentration of the residential fond is observed in Riga \nand outskirts of Riga, that is determined by the number of inhabitants and economic activity in the regions. \nThe obtained results have pointed to the directions and questions for further potential research.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it