<scp>S</scp>haky foundations: Refugees in Vancouver's housing market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Our purpose in this article is to examine refugees' access to housing in metropolitan Vancouver. How are refugees faring in Vancouver's housing market relative to non‐humanitarian immigrants? Is there evidence that their housing circumstances change over time? Following from this, can we detect systematic differences in housing experiences between refugees selected and supported by the Canadian government versus those who come to Canada seeking asylum? Finally, what are the most important barriers for refugees in Vancouver's housing market and how are they addressed? Our study involved three main forms of data collection: focus groups with representatives of organizations that support newcomers, focus groups with newcomers, and a systematic survey exploring the housing experience of immigrants and refugees. While this article focuses on the survey results, we also draw upon the contextual knowledge obtained through the focus groups. We find that refugees are more likely than economic immigrants to lack the resources needed to access adequate and affordable housing. Many inhabit inadequately maintained, overcrowded, and unaffordable housing units and experience increased risk of homelessness. Therefore, we conclude that there is a need for greater coordination between housing and settlement policy to enable all newcomers to meet their housing needs.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".