The State of Housing in California 2012:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
California’s housing market ended on a stronger note in 2011 and shows signs of improvement for 2012. A robust recovery is not forecast until 2013. 1 Despite six years of decline in housing prices, the State still lacks an adequate supply and mix of housing, in the right locations, and affordable to families, the workforce and special needs populations. Furthermore, the affordability of rental housing in many markets has gradually deteriorated due to falling incomes and rising rents. Regarding affordability of ownership housing, financing remains difficult for many due to tight lending requirements. Prior to the foreclosure crisis and current economic downturn, frequently referred to as the Great Recession, California had experienced decades of undersupply, contributing to significant price escalation and worsening affordability. The University of Southern California (USC) Population Dynamics Research Group found that while the recession of the early 1990s was most devastating with regard to poverty and unemployment, the housing price declines, construction downturn, and foreclosures have been worse in the Great Recession of the mid-2000s. This recession worsened the effect of long term inadequate supply and affordability problems and has not been offset by vacant units resulting from foreclosures, or from depressed market conditions. While the housing market is stabilizing, its recovery may be different from previous crises and is being shaped by new market conditions and shifting trends. Without fail, the supply and affordability issues are present more than ever. “We expect a modest growth in housing starts for the balance of the year at approximately one quarter of the U.S. rate … predominantly multifamily housing. In 2013, we forecast a 40 % jump in permits, slightly above the U.S. rate and a dramatic rise to 130,000 permits in 2014, double the U.S. rate.”
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".