Place-making with seniors:transforming affordable housing into home
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regeneration projects which re-house older people can potentially situate elderly residents in unstable, uncertain circumstances, which include residential eviction, loss of social support networks and access to health and wellbeing resources. Alongside this, the loss of the home as a place of safety and security can create psychological distress. Housing that is not only affordable but also supportive of the psychosocial needs of seniors is essential to the well-being of our ageing population, and this is particularly important in current times when Metro Vancouver is experiencing a significant increase in its older adult population during a period of rapidly rising market rents. This situation threatens housing adequacy for older citizens and places them at risk of isolation as well as social and societal disconnection and retrenchment from community life. Local and regional policy has advocated for affordable housing as a potential solution to provide stable, secure housing for those older people who are at risk of economic eviction. Yet the provision of affordable housing in its built form often overlooks the notion of sense-of-place, defined as the social, psychological and emotional bonds that people have with their environment. Using a community-based participatory research approach, this paper presents findings on how: (i) sense-of-place is experienced by older people relocating into an affordable housing development; (ii) lived experiences can inform the provision of effective formal and informal supports; and (iii) older people and other stakeholders can be located as active ‘place-makers’ in community planning and development.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".