Urban housing tenure choice from an economic and demographic perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis evaluates the influence of family life cycle stages as a factor of residential tenure choice. The importance of tenure choice is being more widely recognized through the greater use of housing market and demand models. The purpose of this thesis is to contribute to the knowledge of the tenure decision process so that planners, policy makers, and other market participants are more effective in achieving their goals. In this study an empirical analysis is performed using urban Canadian data for households with head's between the age of 25 and 44. Eight family life cycle stages are used to classify households. A joint tenure choice and mobility model is used to test for ownership probability differences among the life cycle stages. Within the study framework allowances are made for recent and non-recent movers. The results indicate that family life cycle stages impact on tenure choice, and that this occurs outside of their impact on expected mobility (or holding period). The life cycle stage impact is strong through the effect of household reactions to income and wealth, and weak through just group membership. This suggests that utility preferences for ownership tend to shift as households progress through various life cycle stages. When elasticities are estimated they are found to reflect the different housing consumption and mobility decisions of households at different family life cycle stages. This also supports the concept of a changing utility preference function. In general this study finds that tenure choice is affected by consumption and mobility influences that result from different family life cycle stage demands. Further research studies, government and business policies, dealing with residential tenure choice are encouraged to recognize family life cycle stages and the impact of household expected mobility.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".