Bibliographic record
Abstract
The City of Toronto is undergoing a housing affordability crisis, where rent prices have been increasing and wages are not able to keep up. These increasing rent prices are caused by the financialization of housing, and reinforced by neoliberalism, resulting in displacement. Community land trusts provide an alternative affordable housing option for individuals as they take property away from the speculative private market, and offer affordable rentals. Although the City of Toronto actively works with community land trust providers, a gap exists as the HousingTO Action Plan 2020-2030 does not mention community land trusts, potentially impeding funding and support sources from the municipality. Case study examinations and a qualitative interview were conducted as part of the methodology. The findings indicate that the City of Toronto must 1) Define and be inclusive of the word “community land trusts” in the housing plan, 2) ensure that City funding for Grants, Incentives, and Rebates include operation grants that community land trusts can access, and 3) Expand the Multi Unit Residential Acquisition (MURA) program.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.002 |
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".