A Window Into Park Life: Findings From a Resident Survey of Nine Mobile Home Park Communities in Vermont
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Affordable housing is a critical issue facing many rural communities. Mobile home parks are a form of affordable housing prevalent in rural areas that is being lost as parks close across the United States and few new parks are developed. Limited research on how residents view their parks and the public perception that mobile home parks are undesirable may diminish efforts to prevent park closures. This paper considers how mobile home residents view their quality of life and housing issues living in this type of rural community. Findings from a survey of two hundred and fifty-six residents at nine mobile home parks in Vermont are reported. Respondents were asked how they viewed their housing, neighborhood, park management, and infrastructure. Residents were found to have lower incomes than other households in the state. Most were satisfied with life in the park, though lower income residents were significantly happier with the social atmosphere than those with higher incomes. For many households mobile home parks are not transitional housing but are rather places they have lived, and plan to live, for many years. This research can aid rural planners improve and develop future affordable housing, including the evolution of the mobile home park. Keywords: affordable housing, manufactured housing, mobile home parks, rural communities
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".