MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951830822

Network mapping of housing systems: The case of medium-density dwelling design in Australia

2014· other· en· W2951830822 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOCAD University Open Research Repository (OCAD University) · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelocationStock (firearms)BusinessRentingCensusSubdivisionQuarter (Canadian coin)GeographyEconomic growthPopulationEconomicsEngineeringCivil engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Planning and development policies in numerous Australian cities promote consolidation and intensification of activity in existing urban areas. These policies respond to the reducing availability of land for urban expansion, the need to increase infrastructure efficiency, and the desire for a more equitable and sustainable urban future. The medium/high-density housing typologies proposed by such consolidation are readily visualised in the policy documents and sit well within the design capabilities of the local architectural industry. However, these typologies challenge existing Australian housing provision and systemic change is arguably required to enable the outcomes prescribed by the planning and development policies.
\nThe vast majority of existing housing provision is low density, with medium/high-density dwellings viewed as contrary to the ‘Australian Dream’. The 2011 Australian census shows three quarters of Australian occupied, privately-owned houses are free-standing suburban dwellings (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2013). Of these, 77% are owner-occupied (Troy 2012) with the remainder being privately rented. This rate of home ownership has been relatively constant since the post WWII period of suburban expansion and increased household mobility. In contrast, privately-owned multi-unit housing (one quarter of the national stock) has a significantly lower owner-occupier rate of just one third (Troy 2012). Hence, for every one owner-occupied dwelling there are two tenanted dwellings, which are characterised by high rates of relocation. Only 13% of people in rental housing are likely to reside at the same address as they did five years prior compared to 71% of owner-occupiers (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010). These tenure and mobility differences between low density and medium/high-density housing have steered the evolution of two distinct provision systems over time. The resultant built form perpetuates the entrenched perception of medium/high-density housing as an inferior housing alternative to be used as a stepping-stone to the ‘Australian Dream,’ and as an undesirable housing type to have in one’s neighbourhood due to high rental rates. Until such time as this perception is transformed, the planning policies promoting consolidation have limited chance of success and public objections to modifications of existing urban areas are likely to continue.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.148 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it