MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112853225 · doi:10.1080/02673037.2020.1857708

Need for shelter, demand for housing, desire for home: a psychoanalytic reading of home-making in Vancouver

2020· article· en· W3112853225 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lucas Pohl, Carolin Genz, Ilse Helbrecht, Janina Dobrusskin

Bibliographic record

VenueHousing Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychoanalytic theoryPsychicSociologyReading (process)FantasySubject (documents)Space (punctuation)PsychologySocial psychologyPsychoanalysisPolitical scienceLawComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Home is often dually conceptualized as a physical space of living and a psycho-social place of belonging. To engage with this dual nature of home, housing scholars refer to the concept of ontological security to understand how different forms of housing affect subjective well-being. This paper extends the scope of this research. Developing a framework inspired by the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan, we aim to understand what kind of psycho-spatial arrangements of home-making are involved in establishing ontological security. Based on empirical research in Vancouver, BC, Canada, we suggest three modalities involved in home-making: the need for shelter as the most basic psychic relation to survival, the demand for housing as a psycho-social arrangement with the Other, and the desire for home as a psycho-spatial constitution in the fantasy. Through this, the paper calls for a deeper understanding of how the subject is inscribed actively and dynamically into their social and built environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.019
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHousing StudiesSame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207