‘An opportunity to grow, to exist, to be’: how social and affordable housing providers operationalise the right to housing by enhancing capabilities
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
This paper investigates how social and affordable housing providers operationalise the right to housing. It uses the capabilities approach as a theoretical lens to understand how these providers seek to enhance tenants’ wellbeing, dignity and life opportunities. Thematic analysis of interviews with 10 managers of social and affordable housing providers illuminates their perspectives regarding the right to housing, and reveals how managers envisage success stories. Findings show that social and affordable housing providers not only ensure tenants are safely housed, but also prioritise their access to relevant supports, infrastructures and opportunities for participation in society. This research also demonstrates how these providers recognise the value of tenants having agency to make their own decisions about housing and life more broadly, including choosing to engage in activities that are meaningful to them as individuals. Thus, social and affordable housing providers are not only seeking to offer shelter or fulfil the right to housing, but also to enhance tenants’ capabilities. This paper bridges a gap in knowledge regarding what the right to housing means in theory and policy, and how it can be operationalised in 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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