The meaning of housing tenure in eight European countries (draft version)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Workshop 3. Session A. Abstract. Is home ownership the European dream? Since decades there is a discussion in housing literature on the meaning of housing tenure. Is there an innate preference to own as Saunders suggests, or can renting also satisfy basic needs of security? This paper examines the differences and similarities in the meaning of housing tenure within 8 EU countries: Belgium, Sweden, Finland, United Kingdom, Portugal, Hungary, Germany and the Netherlands. The paper presents findings of the qualitative part of the EU funded project Origins of security and insecurity: the interplay of housing systems with jobs, household structures, finance and social security. It is based on institutional studies and on 20 interviews with home owners and 10 interviews with tenants within all countries. This paper attempts to categorize countries according to the way people perceive housing tenure in a country. Perceptions of home ownership, social and private renting are assessed by interviewees tenure preferences, the arguments on which those preferences are based, and the underpinnings of interviewees own choices for one or the other type of tenure.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.109 | 0.021 |
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".