MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7028875085

Homeownership Adjustments By Occupation After The Collapse Of The Housing Bubble

2016· article· en· W7028875085 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Geography and Cartography
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShock (circulatory)WagePopulationQuarter (Canadian coin)Economic bubbleInstitutionReal wagesHousing tenure
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Housing is a foundational element in both the American economy and society. The housing bubble and collapse that occurred in the mid to late 2000’s due to reduced credit standards was a substantial shock to the institution of American homeownership. To observe how different segments of the population were impacted as traditional lending standards were reestablished, a review of homeownership by occupation is examined over a ten-year period beginning just prior to the collapse in 2005. By examining the changes in homeownership probability between the occupations, a comparison can be made on how the different occupations responded to the collapse and the return of traditional lending standards. The results of the analysis revealed that occupations that have higher employment tenure rates and occupations that are connected to the community tended to retain higher probabilities for homeownership even after the collapse. Low wage occupations with high employment mobility displayed the largest decreases in homeownership probability.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)Same topicHistorical Geography and CartographyFrench-language works237,207