Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article argues that our current understanding of the relationship between access to housing and liberty (or freedom) is limited. It contends that judicial decisions and existing legal theory are predominantly concerned with the connection between housing and the two conceptions of liberty famously advanced by Isaiah Berlin: positive liberty and negative liberty. The notion of positive freedom conceptualizes freedom as self-mastery, whereas negative liberty portrays freedom as non-interference. The central premise of this article is that the republican theory of freedom (or republicanism) provides new insight into the importance of access to housing in protecting liberty, most notably in contexts where the state regulates public property, such as in Canada and the United States. The republican theory of freedom defines liberty as non-domination, meaning the absence of others’ power to interfere with an individual’s life and actions. This article argues that we develop a more well-rounded grasp of the value of access to housing by understanding its role in protecting individuals against domination. This article concludes by setting out the four concrete ways that housing reduces domination and safeguards individual freedom in contexts where the state regulates public property. By combining the respective insights of positive liberty, negative liberty, and republican liberty, this article ultimately provides a more robust understanding of the importance of housing in protecting freedom.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.085 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".