Cohousing for Women Baby Boomers: Meaning and Belonging as Design Criteria
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Housing is important to Canadian women as they generally have lower incomes than men, they live longer, and are more likely to live alone (Hudson & Milan, 2016; Bohnert, et.al., 2015). Cohousing refers to intentional neighbourhoods designed to promote a sense of community for residents. The mix of private and shared spaces in cohousing projects allows residents to share resources and mutual support while maintaining independence. This is a housing option worth exploring for Canadian women seeking alternative housing arrangements as they age The aim of this study was to discover if common areas in cohousing contribute to a sense of belonging for women baby boomers who are residents of cohousing. This exploratory research was based on an interdisciplinary review of literature in housing, architecture and design. As an exploratory study, a mixed methods approach was used which included personal interviews, a design workshop, and a Canada-wide survey of women cohousing residents over the age of 50. Findings suggest that for these women, the opportunity for a sense of belonging is created through the coalescence of many factors, including the common spaces, process, and people of the community, the meaning giving to common space and time. This research will be of interest to designers and architects currently involved in cohousing or interested in cohousing as one housing option for women baby boomers.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it