The neighbor spectrum in community housing: Pro-social, anti-social and asocial neighboring in Vancouver
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents focus group research with community housing residents in Vancouver, Canada, investigating the role, activities, and importance of neighboring to these individuals living in vulnerable situations. Neighborly relationships play a key role in connecting the private home with the larger urban community through processes of home-making, social inclusion and integration, but an increasing share of urbanites are excluded from the structural and social expectations of good neighboring. Although neighbors constitute weaker and different ties than friends and family, and although contemporary urban community housing situations present barriers to good neighboring, neighboring is nonetheless essential to urban quality of life. We propose a conceptual frame of a spectrum of neighboring and find that pro-social neighboring, anti-social neighboring, and a middle zone of asocial neighboring, all are important aspects of life in community housing that are also defined in a context-specific way by community housing residents. The outcomes of this research highlight the need for urban social and housing policy that addresses neighboring across the spectrum as an important part of social inclusion and well-being efforts in cities contending with increasing density, diversity, and vulnerability.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it