A national housing strategy for whom? Possibilities and limits in Canada’s National Housing Strategy (NHS) for a rights-based housing regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lack of adequate housing has reached crisis levels in many countries, including Canada. Further, housing policy development often excludes the knowledges of people with lived experience (LE) of homelessness and housing insecurity. In 2019, after decades of absence, Canada legislated the progressive realisation of the RTH and identified lived experience as important to its achievement. In this paper, we ask, ‘What do people with LE contribute to our understanding of the RTH, and how can their knowledges contribute to its progressive realisation through federal policy in Canada?’ We draw on a scoping review of nearly 300 documents published since 2000, which involved people with LE as research participants, collaborators, advisors, or co-authors. Starting from the United Nations’ seven dimensions of the right to adequate housing, LE-informed literature illuminates nuances of these dimensions and highlights the shortcomings of the Canadian federal government's efforts to implement the RTH. We argue that LE, intersectionality policy frameworks, the enforcement of non-discrimination, and trauma-informed approaches are essential for the progressive realisation of the RTH. We conclude with recommendations for Canada and other jurisdictions seeking to meaningfully implement the RTH in domestic policy and practice.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".