Identifying priorities and developing collaborative action plans to improve accessible housing practice, policy, and research in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes the development of priorities and actions to improve the state of research, policy, and practice related to accessible housing in Canada for persons with disability or with accessible housing needs. A modified Delphi approach with an expert cross-sectoral panel was used to gain convergence on a set of priorities for advancing the accessible housing field in Canada. This included circulating an anonymous pre-meeting survey (N = 49) followed by an in-person planning meeting (N = 45). The expert panel at the in-person meeting identified three clusters of priorities from an initial list of 21 priorities, which included: 1) engaging with all levels of government to support accessible housing efforts; 2) developing educational resources to raise awareness about accessible housing, and creating services to facilitate locating and acquiring accessible housing; and 3) fostering meaningful engagement across key interest groups and sectors to find solutions to enact positive change in this space. The findings provide an initial roadmap for bringing greater cohesion to the accessible housing field, which will enable cross-sectoral partnerships and collective action towards informing the next generation of accessible housing standards, regulations and practices for people with accessible housing needs.
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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".