MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

From rags to riches? Migration and intergenerational change in London's housing market, 1971–91

2000· article· en· W1986220319 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michal Lyons, John Simister

Bibliographic record

VenueArea · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Differential (mechanical device)Demographic economicsHousing tenureLabour economicsLongitudinal dataEconomicsSociologyGeographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary In 1971 under half of London's young people, then living with their parents, lived in households that owned their homes, while well over half lived in rented housing. By 1991, now no longer living with their parents, less than a quarter of these young people were tenants. This paper identifies the components of that intergenerational tenure mobility, distinguishing between home ownership in more, and less, ‘desirable’ wards, and quantifies the role of migration in mediating the overall changes in Londoner's housing market status between 1971 and 1991. It analyses the moderating factors contributing to housing status mobility, such as labour market mobility and household type, and assesses the differential impact of these processes on men and women. ONS Longitudinal Study data for the period 1971–91 are analysed. Findings are that the aggregate changes concealed a range of housing careers. In particular, in‐migrants fared less well in the London housing market than in its labour market.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations6
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAreaSame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207