“How does your residential environment positively or negatively influence your well‐being?”: A multicase photovoice study with public housing tenants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public housing aims to reduce social inequalities by providing affordable dwellings as a social policy. Anchored in an ecological perspective, the paper reports on a multicase photovoice study documenting public housing tenants' perceptions of how their residential environment influences their well-being. This design can provide a deeper understanding of the public housing environment to inform change at a programmatic level. To this end, 303 captioned photos were collected by 59 tenant-researchers at six sites in Québec (Canada). An in-depth cross-case analysis of the material led to two key themes with five subthemes each. In the Residential environment perceived as mostly positive theme, the subthemes were access to nature, community resources and services, positive relations among tenants, opportunities for participation, and specific aspects of their home. In the Negative aspects focused on life in public housing theme, the subthemes were strict regulations, lack of respect for tenants' needs, lack of intimacy, lack of proper maintenance, and conflicts between tenants. Findings highlight the dynamic interplay between the residential environment and public housing tenants' well-being. Two recurring programmatic issues are highlighted: problematic maintenance and limited opportunities for tenants' empowerment. Changes to address these concerns at the programmatic level of public housing could potentially increase tenants' well-being.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".