Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.1 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.2 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".