A national housing strategy for whom? Possibilities and limits in Canada’s National Housing Strategy (NHS) for a rights-based housing regime
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 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 it