MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403472790 · doi:10.1080/02673037.2024.2415048

The big contradiction between the dream and the reality of homeownership: access to homeownership in Canada, 1986–2016

2024· article· en· W4403472790 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Yushu Zhu, Minheng Chen, Haofeng Su

Bibliographic record

VenueHousing Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsContradictionDreamPsychologyEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Homeownership is a symbol of success in many societies. Yet, deteriorating housing affordability, coupled with the spread of casual labor and job insecurity, makes homeownership out of reach for many and calls into question the sustainability of the homeownership ideology. This study contributes to the scholarly debate on the ideal versus the reality of homeownership by examining stratified access to homeownership in Canada from 1986 to 2016 using six waves of population census data. We examined three narratives underlying the promises of the homeownership ideology: (1) widespread and (2) equal opportunities for homeownership access, and (3) the achievement of financial security through building property assets. This study investigates access to three types of housing tenure: outright homeownership, mortgaged homeownership, and renting, and presents empirical evidence that challenges the ideological premises of homeownership. As homeownership becomes more unattainable, “Generation Rent” and low- and moderate-income households lose opportunities for asset building and wealth accumulation.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHousing StudiesSame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207