An evaluation of the CMHC seed funding for housing development program: consistency, appropriateness, efficiency and effectiveness for affordable and not-for-profit housing development in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a country, Canada has a limited supply of affordable housing. In the context of devolving federal government responsibility in the social housing sector, the growing income gap between the wealthiest Canadians and the middle and lower classes, and the increasing cost of housing in Canada, the provision of housing that is affordable to a range of Canadians is becoming increasingly important. The third sector (non-profits,community groups) is increasingly trying to answer the call for more affordable housing. One of the few on-going,federally funded programs aimed at helping affordable housing development across Canada is Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s Seed Funding for Housing Development Program.The purpose of this study is to review and assess theSeed Funding for Housing Development Program. Part of the Affordable Housing Centre - a subsidiary of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) - the SeedFunding Program aims to help developers undertake an initial feasibility analysis of a proposed affordable housing project. This study will evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the Seed Funding program in assisting target groups in British Columbia, specifically focusing on: not-for-profit organizations (small and large), and Community Groups.The study is divided into two parts. Part one begins by using existing literature to outline the historical factors and circumstances that have led to the reduction in funding for social housing in Canada.
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 | 0.025 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".