MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122991951

Homeownership over the Life Course of Canadians: Evidence from Canadian Censuses of Population

2010· preprint· en· W3122991951 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Feng Hou

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2010
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaceConsumption (sociology)Demographic economicsInvestment (military)Life course approachPopulationCensusClimbGeographyEconomicsLabour economicsDemographyPolitical scienceSociologyPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Homeownership affects investment, consumption, and savings decisions of households, and plays a major role in post-retirement well-being. This paper examines two questions. First, to what extent do Canadians acquire and retain homeownership at different life-course stages, particularly after retirement? Second, has the age profile of homeownership changed over generations? Using data from eight Canadian censuses of population, conducted between 1971 and 2006, we find a strong regularity in the age profile of homeownership across generations of Canadians. The homeownership rate rises quickly with the age of household maintainers (i.e., the person(s) who pay(s) for shelter costs) in the period before the age of 40, and continues to climb thereafter at a slower pace until reaching the plateau near age 65, when about three quarters of Canadian households own their homes. We find that the homeownership rate changes little from age 65 to 74 but starts declining after age 75. As well, we note that the level at which homeownership plateaus has risen steadily across birth cohorts since the 1970s.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.015
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207