Canadian community land trusts through a comparative institutionalist lens: continued liberalization, or welfare partnership revisited?
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
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it