Accessible Housing in Canada: An overview of policy initiatives and the need for renewed action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently there is limited research on accessible housing provisions for persons with disabilities (PWD) within Canada. The aim of our study is to provide an overview of how shortages of accessible housing are being addressed through the National Housing Strategy (NHS), with an additional look at provincial-level initiatives to tackle the issue, using Nova Scotia as a case study. As the NHS is only five years old, a thorough overview of its outcomes was not possible. However, our study revealed a few critical shortcomings regarding current initiatives—including ambiguous targeting for accessible housing development, lack of coordination between the housing and social services sectors, and (over-)reliance on market-based solutions. Broader understanding of accessible housing needs, more empirical examples of how different sectors can work together, and clarification of the costs and benefits of accessible housing are all necessary in order to more holistically address the accessible housing challenges. Wider application of accessibility design codes, alliance-building among vulnerable community groups to develop stronger voices, and enhanced monitoring systems are additional avenues for action.
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 | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".