On the Wrong Track? : Perspectives on Affordable Housing and Transit Oriented Development in Metro Vancouver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Vancouverism is associated with sustainability and progressive urban design, the region’s growth has been accompanied by a movement of industry and employment out of the urban core, a skyrocketing cost of living, and the displacement of many low and moderate income households. Poverty is no longer primarily an inner-city phenomenon, as the rapid suburban development and resulting dispersion of low-income residents in Metro Vancouver since 1970 suggest that affordability and security of tenure are increasingly regional problems. A local political culture that recognizes the needs of the poor has existed in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside for many years. Thus, the neighbourhood has benefited from considerable investment in social housing and innovative health care initiatives. However, many of the region’s emerging low- and moderate-income areas have not had the same history of sympathetic city councils and strong community organizations that have been present in Vancouver’s inner city. At best, the varied adoption of policies to reduce poverty and secure affordable housing has caused an unequal distribution of housing and services throughout Metro Vancouver. This has resulted in highly concentrated pockets of lower-cost housing, social services, and low-income people scattered throughout the region, with higher occurrences along rapid transit lines. However, the emerging model of building transit-oriented, complete, and compact communities that catalyzes redevelopment stands to further displace low-income neighbourhoods. While the Downtown Eastside continues to be home to many low-income people, low-income neighbourhood throughout the region are increasingly vulnerable. The problems caused by regionally disparate approaches to community building are compounded as low-income people move out of the visible and heavily serviced urban core and into outlying suburban neighbourhoods that are underserved and, in some cases, at risk of displacement through transit-oriented redevelopment.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".