Environmental and Social Issues in Jordanian Low-Income Housing Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between people, environmental circumstances and the cost of projects in Jordan are focal points of this study, where the problem of low-income housing needs is still increasing, having tripled in the last two decades. The shortage of public housing production and the cost of lands and building materials, mainly controlled by private sector investors, are substantial reasons for the housing crisis in a country of poor economic recourses and high percentage of poverty. The Jordanian government decided to aid the poorest class of the population, offering free of charge shelters organized in small residential quarters, which became a prototype diffused throughout all the Jordanian regions. This paper analyzes one of these typical quarters, collecting data through face-to-face interviews with the households using a structured questionnaire. The study focuses on the physical components of the quarter, looking at open spaces, paths, streets, volumes, materials, colors in relation with the environmental context. It also investigates the households' requirements, relationships and preferences. The study discusses also the housing problems at the macro scale level in order to concretely evaluate the shelters' cost, setting some guidelines with respect to the cultural and environmental local conditions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".