MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2582303254

Policy implications for governing Australia's apartment communities: Tenants, Committees of Management and Strata Managers

2015· book-chapter· en· W2582303254 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUTAS Research Repository · 2015
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandlordApartmentBusinessCorporate governanceQualitative researchPublic administrationPublic relationsManagementFinancePolitical scienceEngineeringSociologyEconomicsCivil engineeringSocial scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Over the second half the 20th century Australia emerged as a home owning nation with much of that home ownership occurring within a suburban setting dominated by free title land holdings (see Chapters 9 and 10). However, as Randolph (2006: 474) notes, since the turn of the 21st century this freehold suburban option [has become] increasingly curtailed. Australians are increasingly expected to spend substantial proportions of their lives in a form of housing that hitherto has only been a minority choice. One such form is strata titled housing. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011) data reveals that in Australia one in four people live or own strata titled property in its various forms (units, flats, apartments, gated and master planned communities or commercial property). The growing dominance of strata titled living is attributed in part to the increased prevalence of urban consolidation agendas in the contemporary planning of Australias cities and regions (Easthope and Randolph 2008) which results in higher density living.</p><p>Australia has much to contribute to research on high-density living. While there is debate as to where and how strata titled properties first originated, the introduction of the strata title mechanism into Australia in the early 1960s means that there is a 50-year period of accumulated experience with this property type. Easthope and Randolph (2008: 244) note that Australian strata title property legislation has formed a basis for jurisdictional reform in countries such as Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei and Malaysia. The take up of Australia's legislative framework by so many countries combined with urban consolidation policies and frameworks makes strata titled housing a significant area of housing research for Australian and international audiences.</p><p>Accompanying increased numbers of strata titled dwellings in Australia has been a shift in a range of rental sub-markets. Increasingly, Australians rent units and apartments rather than single dwellings. Governance issues increasingly coalesce around tenants and strata-titled building complexes. While there is an increasing body of academic research in this area, it has primarily been from the perspectives of the developer-buyer, owner-occupier or social housing tenant, and/or from the landlord. The view of the committees of management, or the strata manager has not previously been considered. This chapter explores this gap through presentation of findings from a qualitative research project that investigates the interaction between tenants, owner committees of management and strata managers of apartment developments in Melbourne, Australia. The research investigates tenancy and landlord issues that committees of management address as part of their usual business. First, the market changes that lead to greater numbers of tenants living in buildings with this type of governance mechanism is highlighted. Then the governance mechanism attached to this form of building complex is explained. Next, the research method is outlined. Finally, the thematic results are discussed and their impact on policy explored. without identifying and exploring this lacuna, there can be no holistic understanding ofhow high-density living will play out within Australian society or how governments might introduce policies and legislation that would assist in closing the gap.</p>

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.143 · 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