Filtering and Gentrifying in Toronto: Neighbourhood Transitions in and out from the Lowest Income Decile between 1981 and 2006
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the changes between 1981 and 2006 in Toronto's lowest income neighbourhoods. It shows the oldest buildings gentrifying while, contrary to filtering theory, the newer high-rise apartments in the inner suburbs built for a car-oriented middle class were filtering down to visible minorities, recent immigrants, ethnic minorities, single parents, and the unemployed or underemployed people in low-wage jobs. Nevertheless, the lowest income neighbourhoods display a considerable degree of income mix pointing to the importance of household-based rather than space-based housing policy. The high proportion of university graduates in the lowest income neighbourhoods raises questions about the role of education in helping people gain access to urban resources. While government transfers to households in the top nine income deciles increased, they decreased for the lowest income households. Although the average income in the CMA rose faster than rents, rents increased in the lowest decile neighbourhoods with declining incomes. Low-income households were moving to pedestrian-unfriendly neighborhoods with poor access to public transit and employment opportunities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".