Constructing Home and Community in Halifax Housing Cooperatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The subject of housing is a complex and multifaceted one in contemporary Canadian society, and urban areas in particular. Cooperative housing addresses a multitude of housing-related issues and provides an alternative model of affordable and sustainable housing solutions for a diverse cross-section of citizens. Housing cooperatives (co-ops) are a specific response to a variety of urban housing issues, from planning and sustainability, to housing scarcity and affordability. They also address fundamental social issues, from social isolation and marginalization to community building and creation of identity. This paper uses an ethnographic approach to explore how the structure of housing cooperatives and their ideals of cooperation and community translate meaningfully into a sense of place and identity for their members. It looks at how the social production of space relates to the social construction of space within cooperatives, how cooperatives address issues of affordable housing, and how coops deal with social distance and community building within urban environments. The findings of this research demonstrate the dynamic ways in which housing cooperatives meet the social and economic needs of diverse individuals within an urban social and economic landscape, establishing sense of home and community for their members, and offering an affordable and sustainable model of housing.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".