MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4297815652 · doi:10.46692/9781847422446.004

Canadian housing allowances

2007· other· en· W4297815652 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marion Steele

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Housing allowances in Canada are offered by only four provinces. The absence of a national allowance should not be too surprising in a country where there is really no such thing as national policy for low-income housing. Instead there is a set of housing policies, one for each province. This has been especially true since the federal government all but vacated this area in the 1990s. It first terminated all programmes for building new social housing, as low- and mixed-income housing is called in Canada. Then it transferred the management of most existing subsidy commitments to the provinces. Even in the 1960s to the early 1980s when the federal government took an activist role, low-income housing in any province was only built if a province accepted the federal offer of funds and joined as a partner. This is in line with the fact that housing is constitutionally the responsibility of the provinces – a quite different situation from that of the US states relative to their federal government – and Quebec, especially, has been sensitive to this. The Canadian provinces have differed in their take-up of federal offers. In part this is because they have widely varying housing markets. For example, some like Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia (BC) have high-rent and high-cost cities and others such as Newfoundland, Quebec and Manitoba have not. They also have varying views of their own needs and the role of governments, with, for example, Alberta generally favouring a highly restricted role, Quebec an interventionist one and other provinces, such as Ontario, a more mixed role. But all the provinces, with the notable exception of oil-rich Alberta, have less revenue-raising capacity than the federal government, despite their constitutional responsibilities. The provinces also have attached less importance than the federal government to new construction, quite naturally in view of the latter's responsibility for the macro-economy and the role of house building in maintaining full employment. It is not too surprising in this context that some provinces have introduced housing allowances, which are cheap programmes involving no new building, although they have received no federal support. Ironically, these programmes are targeted squarely at solving a lack of housing affordability, the problem which the federal government's housing agency, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), has identified as the overwhelmingly most important housing problem.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0980.010

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism→French-language works237,207→