Decentralisation and Devolution in Canadian Social Housing Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beginning in 1945 Canada had a relatively successful housing policy meeting the needs of returning veterans, baby-boom parents, and, later, baby boomers themselves in addition to those less advantaged through a number of income-support housing programs. The reasons for this success are well documented and largely relied upon the dominance of the federal government in this policy space. This was achieved despite housing being constitutionally primarily a provincial responsibility due to a process known as ‘cooperative federalism’. This success ended in the mid-1990s and Canada has not had a national housing policy, nor successful provincial policies, since that time. Much of the demise of housing policy can be attributed to what at the time was considered to be a unique Canadian federal phenomenon called ‘province building’. We look at the institutional arrangements which made for a successful housing policy for nearly fifty years and the institutional failings which led to its demise. In particular, we analyse why the unique position of municipalities in Canada vis-à-vis other federal states made it more difficult to deal particularly with planning and social housing problems in Canada. The lessons of Canada are apt for other federal states trying to trade off regional and ethnic interests versus national priorities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".