MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415747268 · doi:10.1080/07352166.2025.2570754

Anti-immigration and the politics of housing affordability: Examining the evolution and housing market impacts of Foreign Buyer Taxes in British Columbia and Ontario

2025· article· en· W4415747268 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Taesoo Song

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Urban Affairs · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsPoliticsGovernment (linguistics)State (computer science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the evolution and impacts of Foreign Buyer Taxes (FBTs) in British Columbia and Ontario, Canada, introduced amid growing concerns over housing unaffordability. Drawing on media and policy discourses, I show how FBTs gained political traction through racialized narratives that narrowly framed foreign—especially Chinese—buyers as key culprits of unaffordability, deflecting attention from broader structural issues in the housing market that enabled speculation. This framing enabled governments to avoid more politically sensitive reforms implicating domestic investors and homeowners. Examining quantitative housing market data, I find that FBTs were associated with a decline in homeownership among immigrants without Canadian citizenship or permanent residency in affected regions, with no significant improvements in rental affordability. Altogether, the findings suggest that provincial governments may have adopted FBTs as a political expediency to signal government action on the housing crisis while sidestepping structural drivers of unaffordability in their housing markets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.802

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Urban AffairsSame topicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesFrench-language works237,207