Addressing the Continuing Quandary of Theory in Housing Research: A Systematic Review of Contemporary Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The housing studies field has been critiqued since the 1980s for under-engagement with theory. In this paper, we present the findings of a systematic literature review that investigates the extent to which contemporary housing scholarship engages with theory. By reviewing all research papers published in three leading housing journals in 2019 and 2020, we identify references to theory and evaluate the extent of engagement with theory. In total, 313 papers were reviewed to assess current theoretical frontiers in housing studies. We conclude that the theory-scape of housing research is more complex and nuanced than previously depicted, with contemporary scholarship engaging meaningfully with diverse theoretical frameworks of both “general” and “housing-specific” application. Our findings illuminate how housing studies is growing not only as an interdisciplinary field, but also as a well-theorized one.
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 | 0.037 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".