Compared predictions of a consumption and a normative criterion of housing affordability in two mid-sized Canadian cities over time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to theorize and measure a consumption criterion of housing affordability and then to compare its predictions with those of a normative criterion over time. The new consumption criterion of housing affordability is quantified with predicted compensatory expenditures that a resident would pay to upgrade to their most preferred home. Its predictions are compared with those of the most popular normative criterion that predicts unaffordability if a resident spends more than a proportion such as 30% of their income on housing. Design/methodology/approach This study uses census and experimental data for owner-occupiers in two mid-sized Canadian cities between 1987 or 2001 and 2020 or 2021. These data are mapped and statistically analysed for comparing the predictions of the two criteria. Findings The study’s primary finding is that both criteria predict improved affordability of owned homes over time. Secondarily, however, the consumption criterion predicts worse unaffordability for the minority experiencing this. It furthermore clarifies their budgets for housing as more constraining than their social utilities that they may have already revised toward affordable home attributes. Indisputable unaffordability after the end of the study period may have nullified the originally recommended sacrifices for residents upgrading to their most preferred owned home. Originality/value The study is original because it demonstrates that a new consumption criterion of housing affordability subsumes the popular normative criterion if plausible assumptions are made about a homeowner’s choices. It then proceeds to speculate how this new criterion might refine the normative criterion with predicted compensatory expenditures for a resident’s affordable preferred homes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".