Securitising Seniors Housing: The Financialisation of Real Estate and Social Reproduction in Retirement and Long‐Term Care Homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The financialisation of seniors housing has reshaped Canadian long‐term care homes (LTCs) and retirement communities since the 1990s. Investors have flocked to profit from the demographic “grey wave” driving demand. Financialised firms (private equity, institutions, publicly listed companies, and real estate investment trusts) have consolidated ownership of 33% of seniors housing (22% and 42% of LTCs and retirement homes). Facilitated by neoliberal healthcare reforms, welfare state restructuring, and the privatisation of social reproduction, the business strategies of financial firms rely on the dual nature of seniors housing as both (1) real estate, and (2) an operating business (delivering hospitality and healthcare services). As real estate, firms profit from repositioning properties and by raising rents. As an operating business, firms raise revenues by adding on escalating private‐pay healthcare and hospitality fees over time; and cut expenses by extracting more value from the socially reproductive labour of care workers, who are largely precariously employed, racialised women.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".