Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is a descriptive and evaluative study of the federal government's NHA Section 56.1 Cooperative Housing Program. The study describes the nature of the housing tenure which the Cooperative Program promotes and the subsidy with which the program delivers its assistance. In addition, the study evaluates the Cooperative Program in terms of process, impact, and efficiency and on the basis of the program's consistency with the objective of Canadian social housing policy. This evaluation is based on analyses of the data from a national survey of Section 56.1 cooperative households and project managers and from a small sample of Section 56.1 cooperative housing units located in the Vancouver area. The description of the cooperative housing tenure indicates that there are fundamental organizational and economic characteristics that distinguish non-profit cooperative housing from the traditional home ownership and rental tenures. The description of the program's subsidy mechanism indicates that the Cooperative Program implements both a demand-side and a supply-side form of subsidy and that the magnitude of these subsidies can differ significantly among cooperative households and projects in relation to a number of variables. The process and impact evaluations suggest that there are a number of fundamental problems in the design and implementation of the Cooperative Program. The efficiency evaluation suggests that the Cooperative Program must generate a very substantial dollar amount of external benefits in order to be justified on the basis of allocative efficiency and that the program is both vertically and horizontally inequitable. The overall conclusion of this study is that the Cooperative Program is an ineffective means of achieving the objective of Canadian social housing policy.
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 | 0.063 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".