MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2567399405 · doi:10.17645/up.v1i4.737

Re-Thinking Housing: From Physical Manifestation of Colonial Planning Policy to Community-Focused Networks

2016· article· en· W2567399405 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Planning · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousCommissionPlannerColonialismGovernment (linguistics)Public administrationPolitical sciencePsychological interventionSociologyPublic relationsLawPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current housing systems and policies for First Nations communities in Canada produce a physical manifestation of ongoing colonialism: the house. Examinations of the physical community and house yield an understanding of deeply systematized imperial struggles between Indigenous communities and planning as a discipline. Indigenous families are in crisis as the housing system and Federal planning policies have not allowed for the provision of adequate nor appropriate homes. The recent independent Truth and Reconciliation Commission has begun a civic discussion, accompanied by a new federal government looking to begin a new relationship with Indigenous peoples—here we explore how planning can be a leader in this shift. The ‘contact zone’ is used as an operational lens to examine the ways discourse is used to shape the existing housing system. An interdisciplinary and global approach informs interventions in the existing housing system and policies, creating a community-driven model, and uncovering a reimagined role for the planner.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it