Cooperative Housing and Cohousing in Canada: The Pursuit of Happiness in the Common Courtyards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates residents living experience in the common courtyards of cooperative housing and cohousing in Canada, and their sense of happiness associated with it. Cooperative housing as a form of social housing established in Toronto, Ontario, Canada as early as the 1910s. Cohousing as its subsequent name has evolved into a global movement since the 1960s, to promote residents sharing and caring for one another through active participation in community lives and cooperative management. A key feature of this housing is the inclusion of shared spaces, such as common courtyards. This research explored what make residents happy and/or unhappy in the common courtyards, and how to improve their living experience in the common courtyards. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 residents in three cooperative housing in Toronto and three cohousing across Canada. The findings suggest that the Courtyard is a central component to promote social happiness of residents. The paper contributes to the topic of Housing and Happiness that is rarely studied. It finally proposes a courtyard garden housing system that can be a template for universal application. The main conclusion is that there is a need for more courtyard configuration in contemporary Canadian urban planning and architectural design to promote community development.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".