Housing Discrimination among a Sample of Aboriginal People in Winnipeg and Thompson, Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a paucity of research on housing discrimination in Canada, generally, and even less research on housing discrimination among Aboriginal people—despite the related critical policy issues. Housing discrimination occurs when a group of people are denied equal access to housing. Typically, this discrimination involves the restriction of choices in renting or owning accommodations. There is a consensus among Canadian researchers that Aboriginal people have experienced sustained and widespread housing discrimination even though there are federal, provincial, and constitutional laws and provisions that protect equal access for all ethnic racial groups (Beavis 1995; Quann 1979). Aboriginal people’s access to housing has historically been a controversial policy issue. However, it has become a more complex issue since the large scale migration of Aboriginal people to urban centres throughout Canada. Unlike the housing issues on reserves, housing in the urban context typically involves far more subtle forms of discrimination. In turn, developing effective policy responses is particularly challenging, especially given the different municipal, provincial, and federal jurisdictional issues. Given that the Aboriginal urban migration trend will continue and that available housing will also continue to be limited and expensive, it is vital to understand the types of housing discrimination that exist and how Aboriginal migrants perceive their attempts to access housing. In effect, government housing policies need to be informed by systematic empirical research concerning the contemporary Aboriginal housing experience. Clatworthy (1996) examined the migration, residential mobility, and housing patterns of Canadian Aboriginal people between 1986 and 1991. He found that Aboriginal people moving to urban centers are more commonly: female; younger; include large numbers of families with small children; and have less formal education than their non-Aboriginal counterparts. In 6
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".