MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015171831 · doi:10.1068/c0779b

Meeting Housing-Space Demand through in Situ Housing Adjustments in the Greater Accra Metropolitan Area, Ghana

2009· article· en· W2015171831 on OpenAlexaff
Louis Awanyo

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning C Government and Policy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban and Rural Development Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetropolitan areaResidenceAffordable housingSpace (punctuation)Low income housingBusinessSocioeconomic statusReal estateOccupancyEconomic growthEconomicsFinanceGeographyDemographic economicsPopulationCivil engineeringEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this primary research-based paper I highlight an officially neglected housing supply strategy in Ghana. I discuss the ubiquitous in situ housing strategies employed by households of varying socioeconomic means for meeting housing-space demand and the factors that condition these strategies in the Madina-Adenta area of the rapidly expanding Greater Accra Metropolitan Area. Income and available housing space, household and room occupancy rates, changes in household size, length of residence, tenure, and housing stress were factors in the adoption of housing-space strategies. While 44% of respondents expressed great need for additional housing space, lack of financial resources and the problem of affordability were primary constraints on their ability to employ an incremental housing-space strategy. Access to a good supply of affordable housing credit is thus viewed as a critical housing policy mechanism for enabling in situ housing construction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Planning C Government and PolicySame topicUrban and Rural Development ChallengesFrench-language works237,207