Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amidst today’s housing crisis, there is much to learn from the large-scale cooperative housing experiments that occurred in Canada throughout the 1980s. In Toronto, the Beguinage and Constance Hamilton — two cooperatives for women — developed from urgent calls to reimagine single-women households. Like the Arauco, housing for Chilean refugees, these identity-led initiatives remain successful examples of non-profit housing. By analysing the participatory processes involving politicians, academics, and architects, as well as activist collectives that spurred and emerged from these projects, this paper draws upon the notion of expanded commons to illustrate the broader socio-political discourses surrounding women’s cooperative housing. Using the framework of the “carescape” proposed by Sophie Bowlby, the paper explores the socio-temporal dimensions of informal care practices and reveals the processes of maintenance that are required to support long-term and flexible care exchanges and to promote the accessibility of collectivity. Follow-ups with current cooperative members, architects, and advocates for these initiatives show that cooperative housing has built communities and provided financially viable modes of housing, although more meaningful efforts are needed to sustain continuous participation and community cohesion, over time, so that a cooperative can be a lifelong home.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".