MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406916006 · doi:10.1080/19491247.2024.2435093

Reframing Indigenous housing policy in northern Canada

2025· article· en· W4406916006 on OpenAlexaffabout
Julia Christensen, Christina Goldhar, Shelagh McCartney, Mylène Riva, Rebecca Schiff, Jeffrey Herskovits

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Housing Policy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeToronto Metropolitan UniversityMcGill UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive reframingIndigenousPolitical scienceGeographyEconomic growthEconomicsEcologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review offers a critical discussion of the contemporary housing policy framework in northern Canada. The severity of housing need among Indigenous households in northern Canada has led to a ‘crisis’ framing that dominates northern policy discourse, shapes northern housing policy and programs, and ultimately undermines efforts to provide meaningful, evidenced and northern-driven housing policy. We focus our attention on two critical elements of contemporary northern housing policy: 1) the linear ‘housing continuum’ model and metrics used to measure housing need according to national standards; and 2) sporadic, crisis-driven funding for northern housing. Each of these policy tools have significant implications for the ways in which northern housing policy is developed and implemented across the homelands of northern and Indigenous peoples in Canada, and none are responsive to or reflective of northern housing needs and realities. We call instead for a reframing of northern Indigenous housing policy towards conceptualising housing as ‘home’ by centreing individual and community wellness and Indigenous self-determination through housing. This discussion contributes to our understanding of appropriate approaches to the development of housing policy among Indigenous communities and among other communities experiencing disproportionate levels of housing need.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0150.011
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Housing PolicySame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207