Second thoughts: Do secondary suites provide adequate housing?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While secondary suites were once informal and hidden, they are now seen as a key to addressing Canada's housing supply and affordability challenges. Cities such as Edmonton, where this study was conducted, have reformed their urban planning to allow and encourage secondary suites. In this context, it is important to know whether secondary suites meet adequacy standards. We conducted focus groups with 32 postsecondary students who lived in secondary suites and employed a housing adequacy framework derived from international standards to assess their experiences as tenants. Participants reported that secondary suites generally offered security of tenure, were among the most affordable rentals available on the market, and provided an opportunity to live in high‐amenity neighbourhoods, including close to campus. Conversely, they reported shortcomings in the availability of services due to lack of control over heating and ventilation, in habitability due to inadequate soundproofing and natural light, and in accessibility due to barriers such as steep stairs. This study provides detailed insights into the quality of secondary suites from the perspective of those who live in them, and identifies issues that need to be addressed for tenants to enjoy the right to adequate housing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".