Fastighetsförvaltning, service och kontroll : En undersökning av kvartersvärdarnas funktion i olika områden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2005 a public housing company in Uppsala, Sweden introduced the service quarter host. The focus on comfort (life quality in American programmes) is similar to the non-tolerance programmes. The idea of non-tolerance derived from the theory of Broken windows. The purpose is to examine how the service works according to the theories of Broken windows and social control. The aim is also to examine if the manifest and the latent functions are the same in different areas. Hosts from four different areas have been interviewed in a comparative case study. The result tells that the hosts practice according to the Broken windows model when they prevent damage to, or around the buildings by checking them. And to the non-tolerance when they are taking care of minor problems, defined by them. The manifest functions of the service are the same in all four areas. The latent functions are different related to the host’s apprehension of the people in the areas. How the manifest services are carried out influences the latent function. Social control cannot be excluded as a latent function. The resemblances with the more social administration in Gothenburg points out public housing in the direction of being social housing.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.006 |
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".