RENT CONTROL: A PROPOSAL FOR REFORM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le controle des loyers est une question fort controversee dans les domaines universitaire et politique. L' auteur de cet article examine trois approches distinctes qui ont ere adoptees par des commentateurs : la vision libertarienne embrassee par Epstein; Ie rapport entre Ie foyer et I 'indentite individuelle analyse par Radin,· Ie bien-etre economique. Dans cette derniere perspective, I' auteur insiste tout particulierement sur Ie fait que Ie controle des loyers peut rem placer la conclusion de contrat a long terme. L' auteur propose ensuite une reforme du contrOle des loyers qui essaie d'aborder les preoccupations mises en evidence par les trois approches. Le regime propose libere Ie prix des loyers payes par les locataires qui s'installent dans un appartement, tandis qu 'il permet I'augmentation des loyers payes par les locataires qui continuent d'occuper un appartement, et ce, selon des taux pratiques sur Ie marche et fIXes par un organisme gouvernemental. Enfin, I' auteur propose un plan pour faire la transition du regime actuel de controle des loyers en Ontario au regime propose. Rent control is a matter of considerable academic and political controversy. This article explores three distinct approaches that have been taken b y commmmmentators : the libertarian view espoused by Epstein; the connection between home and personhood analyzed by Radin,' and the economic welfare approach. Within the latter perspective, this article places particular emphasis on the role of rent control as a substitute for long-term contracting. The article then proposes a reform to rent control that attempts to address concerns raised by the three approaches. The proposed regime decontrols rents for tenants moving into apartments, while rent in occupied apartments rises at market rates set by a government agency. The paper further suggests a transition scheme to movefrom present Ontario rent control rules to the proposed regime.
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 | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".