Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".