A Legal Framework for Supportive Housing for Seniors: Options for Canadian Policy Makers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report considers a range of approaches to the regulation of supportive housing for seniors. These approaches take into account the special hybrid quality of supportive housing as housing with services and the particular needs of seniors, especially at the high assisted living end of the supportive housing range. The methodology for the research included a review of literature and legislation in Canada, the United Kingdom, United States, and Australia; consultation with seniors and with professional stakeholders; an evaluation of potential approaches to regulation and possible options to supplement or support regulation (including a National Working Group on Supportive Housing to create best practices guidelines, a Supportive Housing Centre of Excellence, elder ombudsmen, and an information database and seniors' hotline). The Report is intended to serve as an information resource for Canadian policy makers and others concerned with supportive housing for seniors.
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 | 0.041 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| 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".