Building your own place in which to age well: the case of cohousing in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article links the development of cohousing, in other words intentional residential communities (habitats participatifs in French), with the question of the ageing of individuals. Its central goal is to explore whether this type of housing is likely to positively support the notion of “ageing well.” First, the use of a database enables us to gain a statistical and geographical picture of the cohousing situation in North America. Next, the study focuses on lifestyle analysis to see if cohousing is conducive to ageing well in place. To this end, we investigated the Cascadia region (made up of British Columbia in Canada and the US states of Washington and Oregon), as it is one of the main cohousing implementation areas in North America. This type of housing offers a space for living as well as a relational framework full of promises about a chosen and peaceful ageing. The sense of community, mutual aid, consensus, intergenerational interaction, and common spaces and activities appear to be values that directly contribute to better ageing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".