How the Canadian Housing Finance System Performed through the Credit Crisis:<i>Lessons for Other Markets</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s housing finance system exhibited considerable resilience during the recent financial crisis with comparatively little reliance on extraordinary government support. Several distinctive features of Canadian public policy and regulations have had a direct impact on the performance of the housing finance system. This article has three principal sections: The first section provides an overview of Canadian residential mortgage markets, including key features of the Canadian compared to the U.S. housing finance system, a comparison of Canadian and U.S. residential house offerings, and policy implications. The second section provides an overview of Canada’s housing finance system, including relevant features of Canada’s public policy landscape, the role of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), the role of the private sector, and current initiatives underway to improve the system. The third section shows how the Canadian financial system performed through the financial crisis, discussing the performance of the banking system, the impact of the recession on intermediation, and factors related to the banking, regulatory, and communication structures that contributed to favorable outcomes for the Canadian financial sector. TOPICS:Developed, financial crises and financial market history
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".