/cpr Private Rental Housing: The Canadian Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary. Almost three persons in ten in Canada currently rent their accommodation in the private sector: whether in the conventional or non-conventional rental stock. Over the past half-century, there have also been major improvements in ® nancing and in the liquidity of the rental stockÐ widely thought to be important in attracting investment in rental housingÐ and all levels of Canadian government have experimented with a broad range of housing subsidies and initiatives. In this paper, outcomes in private markets for rental housing are seen as a conse-quence of a shift in demand or supply that may itself re ¯ ect a policy initiative. This paper examines two markets: a market for rental housing stock (whose outcomes include property prices, new construction, renovation, demolitions, conversions and other alterations) and a market for rental accommodation (whose outcomes include rents, vacancy rates, usage and the assignment of households to dwellings). The paper reviews basic data on market outcomes in Canada since the Second World War. It then discusses important shifts in the demand for, and supply of, rental accommodation and describes major policy initiatives that may have affected these. As Britain considers how to spur the devel-
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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".