A Comparative Analysis of Short-Term Rental Regulations in Six Alberta Municipalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Once limited and relatively unknown, Alberta’s short-term rental (STR) market has, in the past five years, become a frequent discussion topic in news media and municipal council chambers alike. Facilitated by the arrival of online platforms, such as Airbnb, the now-thriving STR market is viewed as an economic boon by some, but has also stoked longstanding debates about housing access and resident liveability, provoking newer complaints of anti-competitive behaviour, as well as general calls for regulatory intervention. In the context of limited research on Alberta’s STR market (and its regulation), this paper presents a comprehensive overview and analysis of regulatory frameworks for STR activity in six Alberta municipalities, alongside an assessment of pertinent provincial measures. The aim of the review is two-fold: (1) to gain an understanding of the nature and extent of regulatory efforts across a range of local contexts that, together, constitute a representative picture of the overall market in the province; and (2) to ascertain the extent to which these approaches are both effective and appropriate, based on what can be discerned about local context, market dynamics, policy objectives, and current and emerging issues. We argue that while some jurisdictions appear to have fared better in implementing generally appropriate and effective measures, all local authorities, in addition to the province, have considerable room to improve their framework. We draw particular attention to ensuring regulations are developed in response to local issues, reflect the actual and projected state of the market, contain clear and measurable objectives aligned with broader community strategies, and invite ways for local authorities to leverage the power, insights, and resources of platforms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".