Governing Condominiums and Renters with Legal Knowledge Flows and External Institutions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the intertwined roles of legal knowledge and external institutions in condominium governance using a sociology of governance framework. Condominium legislation spread in North America in the 1960s. By the 1970s, renters had become the condominium's primary “other.” The article elaborates legal governance and strategies of property management and private insurance that converge on renters in condominiums. Through this analysis, the renter category is shown to be one point of convergence of mutually reinforcing institutional processes of juridification, commodification, and risk avoidance. Condominium governance is revealed as more complex, heterogeneous, and dependent upon legal knowledge flows through channels and “excerpting” practices beyond the courts, and upon external institutions beyond statute‐mandated condominium boards, than previously acknowledged. Implications for critical legal studies and condominium governance policy are discussed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it