MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121629385

Through the Roof: The High Cost of Barriers to Building New Housing in Canadian Municipalities

2018· article· en· W3121629385 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

VenueC.D. Howe Institute Commentary · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevenueFiscal yearBusinessLegislatureGovernment (linguistics)AccountabilityGovernment revenueEconomic policyEconomicsFinancePublic economicsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2017, Canada’s senior governments spent some $782 billion on program expenditures and interest payments, amounting to 36 percent of gross domestic product. Control of public money is fundamental to democratic government, so it is natural to wonder how much of this activity – and the taxes, fees and borrowing that support it – reflects deliberate choices by voters and legislators. Formal accountability exists. Governments typically present budgets before or shortly after the start of the fiscal year, and budget votes are votes of confidence on which governments stand or fall. Legislatures and their committees play a key role in authorizing many specific expenditures. Governments table their public accounts, which present the audited results for actual revenues and expenses, after the end of the fiscal year. But comparing the expenses and revenues projected in the budgets of Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial governments at the beginning of the year with the results reported in their public accounts after the end of the year reveals that governments routinely miss their budget targets by economically meaningful amounts. More significant, they miss their targets in predictable ways: expenses and revenue typically come in above what the budgets promised. Over the past 15 years, senior governments’ cumulative spending overshoot adds up to $69 billion, with the Prairie Provinces and the Territories showing the biggest overruns. Even larger is the cumulative revenue overshoot: $104 billion. Governments in Canada are spending and taxing far more this year than they would have if they had delivered on their budget commitments. Comparing the annual patterns of overshoots and undershoots over time raises a further concern. Rather than overshoots of expenses coinciding with undershoots of revenue, or vice versa, as would happen if government finances were responding to economic cycles, overshoots on either side of the ledger tend to coincide – which suggests that governments are spending “windfalls” and/or managing the bottom line. Encouragingly, however, the tendency to overshoot and miss budget targets more generally, and the troubling annual patterns, seem to have become less pronounced over the past 15 years. Several steps, including estimates that are more timely and presented in the context of the government’s fiscal plan, a stronger role for legislative committees that authorize spending, and faster and more frequent publication of actual results, could further improve the record. Canada’s senior governments should improve the quality of their budget forecasts and their adherence to those forecasts, and legislators and voters should hold them accountable for doing so.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.287 · 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