MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066146168 · doi:10.3828/idpr.28.3.3

Housing and development strategies in Ghana, 1945–2000

2006· article· en· W2066146168 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 Development Planning Review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban and Rural Development Challenges
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic growthProcess (computing)Low income housingPolitical scienceEconomicsEconomic systemDevelopment economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Housing has occupied an ambiguous place in debates about international development, and about how development should be promoted. The dominant view in the 1940s and 50s was that housing absorbs resources from other productive investments. Not surprisingly development experts accorded a low priority to the sector. Since the early 1960s, there has been a progressive shift in the way that development economists, in particular, have thought about the role of housing in development. Against the background of a continuous shift in opinion, the dearth of in-depth studies on this topic is surprising. With a focus on Ghana, this paper takes a modest step in tracing the changing views about the economic significance of housing in the development process. The analysis indicates that, in principle, views of Ghanaian policy makers about economic aspects of housing have progressed from a narrow and obscure understanding to a broader view. However, in planning and in policy practice, they still have a lot to do.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.277 · 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