Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter analyzes the concept and policy of the right to housing. This has been recognized by the United Nations and other international bodies in various declarations as a basic human right. Housing has been variously defined as having several different components. Several countries have adopted housing as a right either in their national constitutions or in national legislation. Others have accepted the international declarations but not as binding upon them. However, as several case studies illustrate, even those countries that have incorporated them into law have fallen short of achieving the goal of actually fully implementing this right. The case studies are of the United States, including New York City, France, the United Kingdom, including Scotland, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The issue of providing at least basic shelter to the homeless is discussed in the context of a report by the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Housing, the United States, France, and Scotland, published in 2015. Given the failure of the countries studied to meet all housing needs, the conclusion is that this “right” remains aspirational, even where it is legally recognized. However, approving the right to housing helps organizations seeking to meet housing needs to better be able to pressure their governments to do more to meet those needs, especially for those most in need of adequate 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".