MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Housing as a Tool of Economic Development since 1929

2005· article· en· W2044097038 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Urban and Regional Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban and Rural Development Challenges
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsLatin AmericansPolitical scienceAgency (philosophy)ExcuseEconomyHumanitiesEconomic growthSociologyEconomicsSocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Housing policy in the developing world has usually been shaped by social and political considerations, yet housing can also be used to promote economic development. From the 1930s to the 1950s, it was increasingly deployed for this purpose by the agencies of colonial powers, including Britain and France; by the United States in Puerto Rico; and by the US Agency for International Development and the Inter‐American Development Bank in Latin America. By the mid‐1960s, the UN and affiliated agencies, notably the International Labour Office, had a keen and broad appreciation of its significance for economic policy. This understanding was temporarily swamped by rising social concerns and then sidelined when the World Bank began to support sites‐and‐services schemes in the 1970s. It reasserted itself in the 1980s in the form of ‘market enabling’ strategies which, however, too often became an excuse for inaction. This history underlines the importance of paying attention to the potential role of housing as a tool of economic development. Dans le monde en développement, la configuration de la politique du logement tient généralement à des aspects sociaux et politiques, alors que le logement peut aussi servir à promouvoir l’expansion économique. Des années 1930 à 1950, c’est dans ce but qu’elle a été mise en œuvre par les organes des puissances coloniales, dont la Grande‐Bretagne et la France, par les États‐Unis à Puerto Rico, ainsi que par l’agence de développement international des États‐Unis (USAID) et la Banque interaméricaine de développement en Amérique latine. Au milieu des années 1960, l’ONU et ses agences, notamment le Bureau International du Travail, ont émis un avis général tranché quant à son importance en politique économique. Cette idée a été temporairement submergée par l’apparition de problèmes sociaux, puis mise sur la touche lorsque la Banque mondiale a soutenu les projets Sites et services dans les années 1970. Elle s’est réimplantée dans les années 1980 sous la forme de stratégies de stimulation de marché qui, toutefois, ont trop souvent servi d’excuse au manque d’action. Cet historique souligne l’intérêt à accorder au rôle potentiel du logement en tant qu’outil de développement économique.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.287 · 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