MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391333288 · doi:10.54825/gqau9087

Housing beyond land rent?: A critique of market housing solutionism

2024· article· en· W4391333288 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stefan Kipfer, Luisa Sotomayor

Bibliographic record

VenueRadical Housing Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZoningAffordable housingFutures contractArgument (complex analysis)Public housingEconomicsGentrificationCapital (architecture)Power (physics)Market economyPolitical economyPolitical scienceEconomic growthLawFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toronto is in a housing crisis. Many residents lack access to adequate and affordable housing. In response, neoliberals and reformers have radicalized their advocacy for more market housing as the only possible alternative. Drawing attention to the role housing plays in the reproduction of labour power and the crisis-ridden dynamic of capital accumulation, we highlight the inability of market housing to meet a range of social needs. We tackle crucial weaknesses of the housing supply argument, including, first, its quantitative orientation; second, its impatience with those who defend existing housing options; third, its historical amnesia; fourth; its pop-economist (mis-)understanding of housing markets; fifth, its superficial critique of zoning, and sixth, its illusory embrace of seemingly alternative ways of organizing housing spatially: mixed-use and inclusionary zoning. Reflecting on the recent municipal by-election in Toronto, we also consider what it would take to shift course towards decommodified and decolonial housing futures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.032
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadical Housing JournalSame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207