DWELLING SATISFACTION OF DISABLED HOUSEHOLDS IN ONTARIO
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Housing stock remains overwhelmingly inaccessible to disabled people in Ontario. The primary method by which accessibility in the home is improved is through the installation of dwelling adaptations, which modify the layout or structure of parts of the home. Measuring the impact these adaptations have on various measures of a household’s dwelling satisfaction will help inform disability and housing legislation, two policy arenas that have seen renewed interest by both provincial and federal governments in recent years after decades of cutbacks to social supports for disabled people. Using the 2018 Canadian Housing Survey dataset collected by Statistics Canada, Ontario households were split up into three groups; households that need no adaptations, households that need and have adaptations, and households that need but do not have adaptations. Demographic profiles of each group were built and compared. Various measures of dwelling satisfaction were also compared. This was done using descriptive statistics, t-tests, and logistic regression. All households that require a dwelling adaptation had much higher rates of Core Housing Need, rent subsidy, and lived in non-market rental housing compared to non-disabled households. Only half of households requiring adaptations had them. Households that had the adaptations they required had statistically comparable rates of dwelling satisfaction measures to non-disabled households. Households without the adaptations they required were more likely to be women-led, more likely to be led by a young adult, and were more likely to feel unsafe in their home. Adaptations were found to significantly alleviate dissatisfaction with the condition, safety, and accessibility of the home, but adapted households remain in more precarious and substandard housing compared to non-disabled households.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,282 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».