Implementation Risk Factors of Collaborative Housing in Poland: The Case of ‘Nowe Żerniki’ in Wrocław
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main aim of this study is to elucidate implementation risk factors of collaborative housing in Poland. The research is based on Rogers’ framework supported by Kim and Mauborgne’s utility map. On this basis, in-depth interviews were carried out with the leader of a housing project called ‘Nowe Żerniki’ in Wrocław, residents of collaborative housing, third sector actors, architects and researchers. An analysis of potential demand for collaborative housing was conducted using focus groups for a selected group of students who will make housing choices in the coming years. In their work, the authors assess the factors inhibiting the rate of diffusion of collaborative housing in Poland, point out the utility constraints and try to formulate the basic conditions for socio-technical transitions in the area of grassroots housing. The results indicate that collaborative housing in Poland requires a friendly and supporting environment, credit institutions with experience in handling innovative housing projects and experienced leaders. The connection to the place and the local capital are crucial factors for all the key actors of the collaborative housing process.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it