MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099926498

Climate Change and Asset Prices: Hedonic Estimates for North American Ski Resorts Preliminary draft

2008· article· en· W7099926498 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation during COVID-19 pandemic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReal estateAsset (computer security)Climate changeHedonic regressionCensusExecutive summary
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Delaware for providing selected data on ski resort characteristics, and Michael Dettinger from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography for helpful discussions on the use of climate data. They also thank Monica Ortiz and Abigail Urtz for helpful research assistance, along with seminar participants at the Public Policy Institute of California for comments. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, the Federal Reserve System, or the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. Climate Change and Asset Prices: Hedonic Estimates for North American Ski Resorts We use a hedonic framework to estimate and simulate the impact of global warming on real estate prices at North American ski resorts. To do so, we combine data on resort-area housing prices from two sources—data on average prices for U.S. Census tracts across a broad swath of the western U.S. and detailed data on individual house prices for four markets in the western U.S. and Canada—with detailed weather data and characteristics of ski resorts in those areas. Our hedonic regression models of changes in house prices with respect to medium-run

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducation during COVID-19 pandemicFrench-language works237,207