When “Just Right” Is Not Right: Pushing back against austerity in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Toronto, selected social housing communities are being ‘revitalized’ in partnership with the private sector. This move is widely embraced by policymakers, politicians and social service agencies all of whom applaud its utility in transforming neighbourhoods of concentrated poverty into mixed-income communities. However, residents and community groups criticize this form of top-down neoliberal governance as regulating the morality of space. We explore here the met and unmet demands of residents of three social housing communities targeted for revitalization in Toronto, and highlight resident wins and losses and share lessons for housing activists involved in other similar situations. We see this provocation as part of a multi-scalar push back against austerity in housing. Specifically, while the 2008 crisis did not directly affect Canadian housing, it did play a role in solidifying austerity-as-common-sense as the over-arching frame of neoliberal governance at the local, provincial and national scales. As the examples in this article underscore, this has had significant and damaging impacts on hegemonic housing policy, with government action on housing being strategically limited in ambition.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".