Basic habitability proposals for the reconstruction of Haiti
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the authors of this report, written in September 2010, the physical reconstruction of Haiti through the construction of new human settlements cannot wait any longer. Now is the time to rebuild, beginning with schools, health clinics and hospitals (always addressing the public sphere before the private sphere); to repair and reopen buildings with structural damage; to “knock down” certain elements of the country’s infrastructure damaged beyond repair, selected by experts; and to reuse the rubble that has built up in the streets, as a large part of the population cannot afford raw materials, especially after the earthquake. Today, as in previous decades, conditions in Haiti are not conducive to recommending the construction of “adequate housing” using development cooperation funds. Not only is such a recommendation impossible to carry out, but it would also have a paralysing effect on the population, and without the participation of Haitians, there can be no development. This report proposes housing solutions that involve tens of thousands of Haitians (female heads of households in particular) participating in self-build processes. There are no magical formulas, but there is an international consensus that these projects are more successful when they factor in the fact that poverty is heterogeneous and participatory and involves multiple sectors. We must keep in mind the conclusions drawn at the first United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I; Vancouver, 1976), which warned of the impossibility of alleviating huge deficits through conventional policies based on “adequate housing for all,” as well as Habitat II’s significant, more recent contributions (Istanbul, 1996), based on an enabling strategy and progressive habitat policies. The report aims to call attention to the value of a basic habitability proposal for those without shelter as a feasible, realistic alternative to the different proposals offered by cooperation programmes and a way of addressing the lack of concrete solutions in the Action Plan for the National Recovery and Development of Haiti (March 2010).
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".