Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the United States’ welfare state coming to rely on market-based policies, the notion of choice has come to the forefront of public housing policy. This study investigated choice within a Chicago public housing community slated for redevelopment. In theory, the utilization of the private market creates broader options, empowering citizens to exercise greater autonomy in major life decisions. The housing authority emphasized the choices available to tenants, including the choice to remain on-site during redevelopment. Yet relocatees reported experiencing pressure to relocate, through either explicit actions from housing authority officials or nuanced channels including steering and coercion tactics. The incongruence between the narratives presented by the housing authority and those presented by the public housing residents demonstrates that the distinction between “voluntary” and “involuntary” relocation is not always clear. We offer several areas for consideration moving forward, including substantive inclusion of residents in planning processes, development of a more effective incentive structure to reward public housing agencies for relocating residents into higher quality neighborhoods, and shifting the overall framing of subsidized housing residents from consumers to civic agents who hold the potential to shape the future directions of their communities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".