Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews the characteristics of the different age groups that may affect future housing markets and the evolution of Canadian cities. It uses the census micro-data from 1981 to 1996 to construct profiles showing how the age groups differ and how cohorts have evolved over the 15 years since 1981. It looks at differences in population size, migration patterns, household composition, education, employment, income, gender roles, housing paths and market outcomes. It shows the dependency of growth on immigration and points to the concentration of the Canadian population in the major cities. It relates the delay of family formation and entry to homeownership to changing education, employment prospects and to the shifting income prospects of men and women. Market outcomes are reviewed and the expected consequences due to the aging of the population are described. Dans cet article, on evalue les caracteristiques des differents groupes d'age qui pourraient avoir un impact sur les marches de logements futures et l'evolution de villes canadiennes. On utilise des micro-donnees de 1981 a 1996 afin de construire des profiles qui demontrent comment les groups selon l'age different entre eux et comment les cohortes ont evolue au cours des 15 ans depuis 1981. L'analyse prend en consideration les differences dans la taille de population, les patrons de migration, la composition des menages, l'education, l'emploi, le revenu, l es roles par genre, les trajectoires en matiere de logement et les resultats du marche. L'analyse demontre la dependance de la croissance sur l'immigration et , par la, mets en evidence la concentration de la population canadienne dans les villes principales. On identifie l'association entre le delai dans la formation des familles et l'entree au marche de logement par rapport a l'education changeante, aux possibilites d'emploi, et au changement de revenu anticipe des hommes par rapport aux femmes. Les resultas du marche sont analysees et les consequences attendues due au vieillissement de la population sont decrites. ********** Differences in the size of age groups, in their migration patterns, in their preferences or in their income prospects will affect future population profiles and, therefore, housing markets, city structures and the prospects of regions. These differences change the number of people that will form local housing markets, the type of dwelling units that will be added, the public services that will be needed, the composition of neighbourhoods and the expectations of buyers, investors and builders. The changes can affect the cohesiveness of neighbourhoods and, possibly, the outlook and sense of well-being of the residents. The changes can affect the size of the labour force and the income prospects of potential employees and they can also lead to differences in local and regional economies. The environment and the housing stock that was formed and modified by the older cohorts can affect the new generation's ability to leave their parent's home, find housing in suitable locations, form families, buy a house and move up the housing quality ladder. The welfare implications also run in the opposite direction as the number of people leaving their parents' home and the number of first-time hornebuyers can affect the older household's housing options, their equity and their savings and retirement plans. Cohorts are linked through the legacy of built environments and through the forces generated within current housing markets. Changes in cohort trajectories and changes in the conditions surrounding a new cohort's entry into the housing market affect the way cities evolve. Housing is distinguished from other essential services by its durability, cost and diversity: it is passed across generations, it is expensive, and information on prices and the nature of available options is incomplete given the variety of housing forms and the thinness of markets. …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".