Studies extracted: 297; eligible: 242; ineligible at full text: 55.
Coefficient rows: 18831; usable in the pooled synthesis: 7693 from 149 studies.
| confidence |
rows |
| high |
14776 |
| medium |
3941 |
| low |
114 |
# Source of the standard error
| source |
rows |
| reported |
10227 |
| none |
3901 |
|
b/t |
|
b/z(p) |
| (ci_hi-ci_lo)/(2*1.96) |
199 |
# Harmonisation flags (rows excluded from pooling)
| flag |
rows |
| none |
13535 |
| nonstandard_x_transform |
2555 |
| unit_not_harmonisable |
2351 |
| year_built_not_age |
226 |
| implausible_magnitude |
110 |
| year_built_not_age;nonstandard_x_transform |
54 |
# Full-text exclusion reasons (first 80 characters)
| reason |
studies |
| Aggregate unit of analysis: the regression (Tables 4-5, p. 9) is a monthly time- |
1 |
| Aggregate unit of analysis: dependent variable is the (log) mean price per squar |
1 |
| No hedonic coefficient table. The paper estimates a generalized propensity score |
1 |
| Aggregate unit of analysis: cross-section of 985 Italian railway station areas; |
1 |
| Aggregate unit of analysis: regressions use Seoul's 25 autonomous districts (Gu) |
1 |
| Not a hedonic regression study: the paper proposes a theoretical 'dynamic impact |
1 |
| Hedonic model (Table 5, p.11) reports only the appraisal-anchoring variables (ln |
1 |
| Conference essay reviewing anchoring effects; the only estimates (Tables 1-3, p. |
1 |
| Aggregate unit of analysis: panel of 30 Chinese cities x 10 years (2006-2015) re |
1 |
| Regression tables (Tables 4 and 6, p. 14) regress price per m2 on three expert-w |
1 |
| Aggregate unit of analysis: 1498 residential price samples averaged into 653 sam |
1 |
| Aggregate unit of analysis: the regression explains the MEDIAN house value of ce |
1 |
| Not an empirical housing-market study: the author states 'the dataset used was s |
1 |
| No regression coefficients are printed: the paper compares predictive performanc |
1 |
| No hedonic regression coefficients on property characteristics are printed. The |
1 |
{
"papers_double_extracted": 20,
"eligibility_agreement": 0.95,
"coef_recall": 0.788720246856144,
"coef_precision": 0.7731166520957543,
"beta_agreement_1pct": 1.0,
"se_agreement_1pct": 1.0,
"sign_agreement": 1.0,
"taxonomy_agreement": 1.0,
"coefficients_compared": 647
}
Interpretation: numerical agreement on matched coefficients is the relevant accuracy measure; recall/precision below one reflect
differences in which auxiliary variables (composite indices, planning dummies, local-regression summaries) each extractor recorded.
Eligibility disagreements are listed in data/validated/validation_results.csv and were resolved by the protocol rule (duplicate-of-prior-publication → excluded).