Canadian community land trusts through a comparative institutionalist lens: continued liberalization, or welfare partnership revisited?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The community land trust (CLT), a non-profit organisational model created in the U.S. primarily to enable community control of affordable housing, has since spread to other countries, including Canada. What differences exist, if any, between CLTs in these two ‘most similar’ countries? Based on statistical analysis of the results of comprehensive bi-national CLT surveys, we identify five differences, with Canadian CLTs comparatively younger, larger and greater in number per capita, more reliant on government than non-governmental/philanthropic funding, more reliant on unpaid/volunteer labour, and more associated with tenure forms which do not directly enable individual household wealth creation, such as zero-equity co-operatives and rental units. Deploying various comparative institutionalist frameworks, we suggest Canadian CLTs have evolved in a manner congruent with the historically distinctive features of its social welfare and housing regimes, which persist in maintaining institutional arrangements that differ from the U.S., marked by reduced liberalisation and enhanced social welfare partnerships.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".