Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the degree to which changes in housing assistance policies (HAPs) reflect the structural shift from the welfare state era towards neoliberalism and financialization, as opposed to efforts concerning the right to shelter that have emerged in Canada between the mid-twentieth century and the housing surge of the 1990s and early-to-mid 2000s. My central argument is that the HAPs instituted by the Canadian state during the welfare state era were shown to garner limited legitimacy among policy-makers and served as an effective scapegoat for a state that came to shift the goals of HAPs towards purposes more explicitly associated with neoliberalism and financialization. To support this argument, I make the following claims that are informed by my empirical findings. Firstly, I show how Canada’s transition from the pre-1980s welfare state era into the contemporary epoch of neoliberalism and financialization saw the state largely withdraw from providing HAPs in the form of public assistance. The twenty first century brought drastic cutbacks to social housing support through public resources. At the same time, I explain that HAP policies were diverted to ramp up the demand for homeownership and access to mortgages which primarily benefited lenders
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".