MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7106282511 · doi:10.60918/16087

Neighborhood profiles and house values : dealing with spatial autocorrelation using kriging techniques

2001· article· W7106282511 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKrigingVariogramSpatial analysisInterpolation (computer graphics)Sample (material)AutocorrelationRange (aeronautics)Principal component analysisGeostatisticsSpatial dependence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current piece of research focuses on assessing the effect of micro-level, neighborhood profiles on house values and market differentiation in the presence of spatial autocorrelation. While principal component analysis (PCA) is used as a sorting device to identify space-structuring factors, kriging is resorted to in order to deal with spatial dependence among model residuals. The hedonic approach, on which is based this investigation, is applied to the residential market of the Quebec City region. The data bank includes some 2 405 cottages sold on the Quebec Urban Community (QUC) territory from January 1993 to January 1997. Sale prices of sampled cottages range from $50 000 to $250 000, with mean price standing at $123 183. The modeling process is applied to the global sample as well as to two randomly chosen, equal-size sub-samples. Isotropic exponential and spherical variogram functions are used for interpolation of model residuals. Once reinserted in the hedonic equations as independent vectors, kriged variables are shown to substantially improve both explanatory and predictive performances. Thus, the global model adjusted R-Square is raised to 95.8% from 88.8% previously while the standard prediction error drops from 11.3% to 6.9% of mean sale price. In so doing, most spatially structured variations are captured by the model, leaving the remaining spatial autocorrelation statistically non significant while regression coefficients are unbiased. Such a procedure is a pre-requisite for reliable hedonic modeling.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHousing Market and Economics→French-language works237,207→