The Construction of Social Housing Pathways Across Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>In recent years, social housing has undergone significant transformation, characterised by increased targeting, the expansion of community housing and the reform of allocation processes. These changes have been shaped by social housing operational policies and the wider Australian housing context, which affect the housing pathways of tenants and their households.</p> <p>Housing pathways are the housing experiences of tenants and their households over time and space. They are not necessarily linear and may refer to changes in tenure, household form, experiences and attachment. The impact of formal policy on these pathways is not well understood.</p> <p>This report forms the first and foundational part of the AHURI Inquiry into understanding and reimagining social housing pathways. It focuses on understanding how social housing pathways are conceptualised and constructed by operational housing policies in Australia.</p> <p> In recent years, social housing has undergone significant transformation, characterised by increased targeting, the expansion of community housing and the reform of allocation processes. These changes have been shaped by social housing operational policies and the wider Australian housing context, which affect the housing pathways of tenants and their households.</p> <p>Importantly, the context, boundaries, feedback loops and levers influencing social housing pathways occur within a broader landscape of human services and private sector interests, not only within the social housing system.</p>
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".