No Rights and No Review: How Housing Co-Operatives Have Circumvented Procedural Fairness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At their best, co-operative housing can be an empowering way for low-income families to obtain safe and affordable housing, security of tenure and a sense of community. However, in recent years, many co-operative boards have adopted rules that enable them to expel members without triggering the extensive procedural fairness provisions otherwise mandated by cooperative legislation. Not only is this practice unfair to co-operative members, but it also undermines the philosophy of co-operative housing and endangers some of the more vulnerable members of our society. This article reviews how these rules have circumvented statutory provisions meant to protect the rights of co-operative members. It also examines the courts' reaction to this scheme and proposes legal recourse that may be available to co-operative members confronted with this type of expulsion.
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 | 0.052 | 0.171 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".