MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132960580

Rental Housing Trends in Toronto: Should Conversions of Rental Buildings to Condominiums be Prevented?

2006· other· en· W7132960580 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John David Hulchanski

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2006
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRentingRental housingStock (firearms)HarmZoningPublic housing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report is focussed on the planning and housing policy problem of the loss of purpose-built rental housing in Toronto. Not only are very few units being built, but there has been an absolute decline in the city’s stock of purpose-built rental housing. The 957 purpose-built rental apartments at Lascelles Blvd. are part of a private sector share of 257,000 such units in the city. Planning in the public interest ought to improve conditions for all residents where possible and avoid doing harm. Planning decisions must not make a bad situation worse. Losing the 957 Lascelles Blvd. purpose-built (primary sector) rental apartments, together with any further losses that might result in the primary sector from such a precedent, will, for the reasons explained in this report, harm the interests of all renter households in the city. Supply will decrease, while need and demand continue to grow. This policy issue is about the City of Toronto’s purpose-built rental stock – the primary rental sector units. Few are being built now. Under current conditions in Toronto’s rental sector, it is premature, and it is not in the public interest, to lose more of this primary stock of rental housing. Research provided in this report documents: (1) the growing income gap between owners and renters; how Toronto’s rental housing does not “down-filter”; that rental-only zoning was abolished in the late 1960s; and that there has been a thirty-year trend of housing tenure segregation in Toronto.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→French-language works237,207→