Le logement locatif dans Villeray : la transformation du parc de logements locatifs et ses coûts sociaux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce projet de recherche porte sur le marché du logement locatif et traite spécifiquement des effets ressentis \npar les ménages locataires dans un contexte de gentrification. Le terrain d’étude est le quartier montréalais \nde Villeray. Nous posons l’hypothèse que Villeray subit des changements associés à un contexte de \ngentrification et que ces changements imposent des couts aux locataires fragilisés et les force à quitter leur \nlogement. Deux études seront présentées. La première porte sur la progression du mode de tenure de la \ncopropriété (divise et indivise). Elle est basée sur une lecture minutieuse et sur l’analyse des registres de \ntaxes foncières de la ville de Montréal. La seconde, basée sur les dossiers de l’Association des locataires \nde Villeray (depuis 2001), traite des situations vécues menant à un déménagement forcé et établit les \ntrajectoires résidentielles de locataires délocalisés. This research deals primarily with the rental market of Villeray. The main hypothesis guiding our field \nresearch is that Villeray is undergoing a series of changes associated with gentrification and that these \nchanges force disadvantaged renters to move out at great personal costs. We present two field studies \nundertaken this year that evaluate the effects of changes occurring in the rental market on renter \nhouseholds. The first study examines co-ownership titles, specifically looking at owner occupancy and \ntenure through the analysis of municipal property assessment registries. The second study is based on \ndocumented cased of evictions. The descriptive data (gathered by a local housing advocacy group since \n2001) informs us of the situations leading to forced mobility and presents the residential trajectories of \ndisadvantaged renter households.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".