Doing Their “Home” Work: A Case Study of University of British Columbia Okanagan Student Youth Rental Housing Experiences in the City of Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Housing for newcomers, including postsecondary students, is increasingly an issue in Kelowna, a mid-sized tourist and retirement community whose real estate market is one of the most expensive in Canada. This study examines the housing experiences, stresses, and coping strategies of postsecondary students attending the University of British Columbia–Okanagan (UBCO) and presents recommendations for improving housing for university students. Using data from thirty interviews with UBCO students and ten interviews with key informants, the study indicates that postsecondary students face significant barriers when looking for affordable, adequate, and suitable rental housing. Of these barriers, the most commonly cited are: (1) high rental housing costs, (2) a lack of affordable and quality housing in a location that suits the student’s public transportation needs, and (3) discrimination by landlords based on age and student status. UBCO students cope with some of these barriers by relying extensively on their own social network (UBCO colleagues, friends, or family members) for housing information and by sharing housing, including basement suites, in order to save money. Both students and key informants suggest the creation of a rental housing service agency that is tailored to the housing needs and preferences of university students. They further suggest a need for increased funding by the three levels of government and for more purpose-built rental housing for university students. In this context, UBCO needs to play a greater role in helping its students find accommodation in the rental housing market.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".