MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2383475247 · doi:10.14288/1.0107105

Near-elderly single-person households in core housing need : linking housing support to the severity of housing need

2012· article· en· W2383475247 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gregory Thomas Hofmann

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic housingHousing FirstCore (optical fiber)Rural housingBusinessSubdivisionSupportive housingEconomic growthGerontologyPsychologyMedicineEconomicsGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), the federal agency responsible for addressing the housing needs of low and moderate-income Canadians, considers those who are unable to secure physically adequate and uncrowded accommodation without spending more than 30% of their gross income to be in core housing need. This thesis analyzes single-person renter households determined to be in core housing need. Whereas the elderly (65 years and older) among core housing need singles are relatively well supported through CMHC's social housing programs, non-elderly core need singles generally do not receive support. Using an analytical framework that focusses on the severity of housing need, and by comparing the socio-economic profiles of selected age groups within this core housing need category, the study has demonstrated the existence of severe housing need, as defined by CMHC, among non-elderly core need singles and has established that the near-elderly (aged 50-64) are in the greatest need among all core need singles and are, therefore, in greater need compared to the elderly. In view of a data base upon which the allocation of assistance to at least those in the greatest need among non-elderly core need singles can be justified, it is argued that CMHC as well as other government agencies and housing support groups must acknowledge such evidence, consider a re-evaluation of priorities and take appropriate action to the extent possible in light of current fiscal restraint . Several suggestions are put forward to this end.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207