Housing production in Brussels: the neighbourhood city to stand the test of urban densification
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, housing densification in the Brussels-Capital Region has become an urban development issue and tool to cope with demographic expansion and the widening gap between supply and demand as regards social and middle income housing. The choice of location is crucial in order to meet these challenges, identified in particular in the Sustainable Regional Development Plan project. Yet, with a social housing stock of 39 000 dwellings and more than 45 000 prospective tenant households, public real estate developers do not seem to consider location as a priority criterion to decide on new housing operations in the regional territory. The present article is intended to be an updated summary of research which began approximately ten years ago and whose objective was to analyse public and private housing production since 1989 with regard to the evolution of the city project [Ananian, 2010]. A second objective has been added to this initial one, namely to compare these results to the Regional Housing Plan (2005) production and the financial framework of Alliance Habitat (2015). This synopsis highlights the necessity to direct the efforts of the public authorities towards an integrated strategy of urban planning and public housing production which takes into account the proximity of the facilities, services and amenities of daily life.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it