Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper builds upon the concepts of the right to the city and urban commoning, to advance the theory of housing commons. Moreover, it draws on selected initiatives to highlight commonalities and differences, and to portray the diversity of contemporary housing commons. We articulate the framework of urban commoning that urban commoners proclaim through Lefebvre’s (1968) right to the city, i.e., urban dwellers’ collective right and power over urban qualities and the urbanization processes. This has been embraced by the new social urban movements to deploy a range of actions and organizational forms, referred to as urban commoning for housing provision and the production of “common” built space, which are in conflict to neoliberal policies and the new urban enclosures. Along these lines the paper lays down a framework for understanding and analyzing housing commons as a social institution with social rights and responsibilities, founded on the principles of self-organization, de-commodification, social support and solidarity. On the empirical front, the paper analyses different (in spatial, political, organizational terms) cases of successful housing commons worldwide, to access their characteristics along the aforementioned principles. The paper concludes that in the present times, where housing problems and homelessness intensify, housing commons comprise not simply a mosaic of viable solutions, but a different mode of urban living imbued by the values of collectiveness, self-organization and solidarity.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.006 |
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".