No Place like Home: Rooming Houses in Contemporary Urban Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we connect existing work on rooming houses to literature dealing with the meaningful nature of ‘home’ and its impact on individuals' health and social well-being. We then examine the extent to which rooming houses provide low-income tenants with ‘homes’, drawing from in-depth interviews with rooming-house tenants living in Hamilton, a city of 450 000 people in southern Ontario, Canada. Our analysis raises concerns about the capacity of rooming houses to provide affordable and stable accommodation. Poor living conditions and poor relations with rooming-house landlords worked directly against the capacity of rooms to offer private, controllable spaces and a degree of ontological security. Analysis also raised concerns about rooming houses as sites for social relations. Many respondents saw rooming houses as unpredictable and sometimes unhealthy social spaces, forcing them to seek other environments to cultivate and sustain relationships with friends and family. In general, respondents' experiences point to the shortcomings of rooming houses as ‘home’ environments, with implications for the health and social lives of the tenant population. Conceptual and policy implications are discussed in conclusion.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".