Bibliographic record
Abstract
Condominium is an architecture of land ownership that produces separate, privately owned units within multi-unit developments. Condominium also constructs a form of private, democratic government, described as a fourth order of government, that acts beneath federal and provincial governments, and alongside municipal government, to govern owners and their property. This article considers a conflict between residential-unit owners and a commercial-unit owner within a condominium development in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. Drawing from material produced in litigation, the article situates the dispute within its property and urban contexts to argue that condominium government requires attention, and not just for its impact on owners, or even residents within, but also because cities must now account for, work alongside, and, in some circumstances, contend with these rapidly proliferating sites of government that are helping to shape who has the right to live in the city. Résumé: La copropriété est une architecture qui soutien une forme de propriété foncière produisant des unités séparées et privées au sein de développements à logements multiples. Les copropriétés construisent également une forme de gouvernement privé et démocratique, décrit comme un quatrième ordre de gouvernement, qui agit sous l'autorité des gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux et aux côtés des gouvernements municipaux pour régir les propriétaires et leurs biens. Cet article traite du conflit entre les propriétaires d'unités résidentielles et un propriétaire d'unités commerciales dans le cadre d'un projet de développement de copropriétés situé dans le quartier Downtown Eastside de Vancouver. En s'inspirant des documents produits dans le cadre de ce litige, l'article situe le différend dans son contexte foncier et urbain pour soutenir que le gouvernement des copropriétés nécessite une attention particulière, non seulement pour son impact sur les propriétaires, mais également sur les résidents. Plus encore, cet article soutient que les villes doivent maintenant rendre compte, travailler aux côtés, voire même s'opposer dans certaines circonstances, à ces sites de gouvernement qui se multiplient rapidement et qui contribuent à déterminer qui a le droit de vivre en ville.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".