MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124460399 · doi:10.1080/00420980500533612

Filtering, City Change and the Supply of Low-priced Housing in Canada

2006· article· en· W2124460399 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrejs Skaburskis

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGentrificationEconomic rentMetropolitan areaCensusStock (firearms)EconomicsGovernment (linguistics)Demographic economicsLabour economicsGeographyEconomic growthMarket economyPopulationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the filtering process and shows the extent of the forces that are gentrifying Canadian cities. The 1996 census micro data are used to develop rent- and price-age profiles of dwellings in each of Canada's census metropolitan areas. The analysis shows that the filtering process is both too slow and, at best, can have too small an effect to be a part of a government strategy for reducing the housing burdens of low-income people. Filtering is not helping lower-income households. The most important finding shows the reversal in the direction of filtering in all Canadian metropolitan areas since 1981. The rents and prices of older dwellings have been rising faster than those of the newer units. The steep 1971 rent- and price-age profiles for Montreal and Toronto are explained to show that government policies would not be able to induce the amount of filtering needed to have a noticeable effect on the welfare of lower-income households. The pressures that eventually find expression in gentrified neighbourhoods are affecting much of the older housing stock. Cities in other countries that are experiencing gentrification may be subject to the same pressures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations63
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban StudiesSame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207