Housing Affordability: A Children's Issue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past several years, federal, provincial, and territorial governments and Aboriginal leaders have been working together to strengthen policies that support Canadian children and their families under the regime of the National Children’s Agenda. Goals have been set, funds have been allocated, programs and services have been strengthened, and plans to measure progress in improving child outcomes are under development. CPRN has been an active contributor to these policy deliberations through a series of publications documenting the values and preferences of Canadians as well as comparative policies in Canada and abroad, and by synthesizing the knowledge base created in recent years. The capstone of CPRN’s work was A Policy Blueprint for Canada’s Children. The Blueprint argued that children are “nested ” in multiple environments: the child within the family, and the family within the larger community of neighbourhoods and workplaces, as well as in the public institutions (such as schools) that provide community infrastructure, and the governments that provide the resources and policies that allow each of these nests to function well. All these nests help to determine the well-being of children today and their preparation for adult life. So far, housing has not been part of the NCA deliberations, nor was it explicitly covered in the
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.003 |
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".