(Un-)affordability of Homes From a Resident’s Point of View in Two Mid-Sized Canadian Cities 30 Years Apart
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new theoretical criterion of housing affordability is defined as a mismatch between where a resident likes to live if preferences are unconstrained, and where they can afford to live if preferences are budget constrained. This study theorizes and quantifies the compensatory amounts of money to be spent to reduce these mismatches by acquiring unconstrained most preferred attributes’ levels of homes. Compensatory amounts are quantified with the predicted implicit prices of almost 3,000 sold single-detached(-like) homes in each of two mid-sized Canadian cities. The analysis predicts approximately one-half of up to 74 respondents in each city in 1987 and 2020 will experience a residential mismatch if they choose their budget-constrained most preferred home. Unaffordable compensatory expenditures are especially predicted for non-managerial or professional workers if they want to afford their unconstrained most preferred attributes’ levels of house type and size, house age and exterior finish, basement condition and home renovations, and lot size and garage. Moreover, average predicted compensatory expenditures exceed loans or grants in four past and current public policies in Canada for subsidizing prices of these four attributes or increasing the wealth of homebuyers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 teacher head, 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".