Bibliographic record
Abstract
The project fills a gap in the literature on social housing policies and their connection to the welfare state and constellations of power in society. The project is theoretically informed by welfare state and urban theory. A comparative-historical case study approach is used to investigate the relationship between social housing, as conceptualized as a feature of the broader welfare state, and neoliberalization in Canada and Denmark. The research questions of the project are: 1) To what extent have Canadian and Danish social housing policies faced retrenchment during the global political economic period of neoliberalization? (2) In a comparative perspective, how have social housing policies and their retrenchment affected housing inequality in Canada and Denmark? (3) To what extent can research on social housing policies, framed in a welfare state perspective, offer useful theoretical innovation and opportunities for future research? The project contributes to the community of scholars by providing a thorough comparative history of social housing policies, as well as by offering new theorizing to link welfare state and urban studies research. In terms of its implications for society, the project connects the welfare state, social housing, and coalition building to aid in arguing a state responsibility to provide citizens with adequate and affordable housing. With housing pressure mounting and poverty deepening in urban centres around the world, this thorough analysis of the connection between housing and neoliberalization is crucial.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".