Fostering Community Resilience and Social Inclusion in the Face of Anti-Homeless NIMBYism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Homelessness has been framed as a growing crisis. People experiencing homelessness often face social exclusion and isolation as a result of policies and practices that promote a “Not in My Backyard” (NIMBY) philosophy. NIMBYism is most recognizable in its efforts to actively oppose affordable housing projects and challenge the efficacies of social servicing in the name of preserving existing neighbourhood dynamics and maintaining property values. These exclusionary discourses and practices have been challenged by a countermovement known as “Yes in my Backyard” (YIMBYism), which advocates for equitable and inclusive housing options and more impactful community programming. To better highlight the tensions between these two movements, this paper provides one of the first comprehensive reviews of multidisciplinary literature on NIMBYism and YIMBYism as they relate to homelessness. We frame the comprehensive review within a community resilience framework —a term used in disaster and emergency management—to shed light on ways communities can foster and promote community resilience in the face of techniques of social and physical exclusion.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".