The Dwelling-Type Choices of Older Canadians and Future Housing Demand: An Investigation Using the Aging and Social Support Survey (GSS16)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the 2002 Aging and Social Support Survey (GSS16), multinomial logit regression, and cohort-component projection techniques, this study explored how social support networks, health, and economic characteristics have shaped the residential choices of older Canadians, and predicts how they are likely to do so in the future. It focused on the distribution of 55-to-75-year-olds across three private-dwelling types: general community living, age-restricted housing, and age-restricted housing with nursing care. The analysis shows that social support characteristics are the strongest predictors of dwelling type, meaning that individuals appear to choose their dwellings largely on the basis of their social needs and wants, rather than on their economic or health characteristics. The analysis also indicates an increased age-specific demand for all dwelling types in the future, but with a reduction of over 2 million older Canadians living in dwellings in the general community between 2002 and 2022.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".