Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Housing, with large impacts on social well-being and inequality, is necessarily a concern of social policy. Canadian housing policy and spending expanded from the 1940s to the 1970s, with profound retrenchment in the 1990s, and some re-engagement since then. It has included programs for homeownership, rental supply, social housing, housing benefits, tenant rights, supportive housing, housing repair, and other matters. The phases of policy evolution have notable correspondences to evolving Canadian social policy and to international housing policy trends. Housing is very intergovernmental in Canada, reflecting this country’s federal system. The federal level has led to major expansion and retrenchment over time, and its policy fundamentally structures the housing system; the role of provincial governments has expanded over time, with much diversity among them; social housing is a joint sphere; municipalities and Indigenous entities play rising roles. Canada is mid-range among affluent countries in the systemic scale of social housing, and relatively low spending on housing. Post-2000 challenges include very high rental and ownership costs, shortfalls in rental supply, and rising low-income housing need—the latter disproportionately affecting various racialized groups. Recent policy trends include renewed priority to affordable rental production, and increased attention to housing benefits, Indigenous housing, housing for people who are homeless, support to vulnerable tenants, and the right to housing. The post-2000 re-engagement has only partly reversed the 1990s retrenchment and has not addressed the severe market pressures of the 2020s.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.249 | 0.072 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".