MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2205792286

Demand subsidies for private renters: a comparative review

2002· review· en· W2205792286 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology) · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsidyEconomicsBusinessMarket economy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1997, after several years of heated policy debate, plans to integrate Commonwealth Rent Assistance with assistance under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement (CSHA) were withdrawn. Since then, governments have made separate micro-level reforms to rent assistance and CSHA programs. This paper aims to contribute to a renewed debate about future directions for rent assistance, which has become the most significant element of housing assistance in Australia. This is a preliminary Research report of the first stage of an AHURI funded research project. It compares the Australian rent assistance model with similar types of assistance in Canada, the US and New Zealand. As the research is at such an early stage, the purpose of the paper is to explore some of the similarities and differences between rent assistance in Australia and these three countries. The paper raises issues that will be explored in more detail during the research project.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.310
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.146 · 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