MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W582896464 · doi:10.60082/0829-3929.1002

"Deference" versus "Security of Tenure": Eviction of Residents of Subsidized Housing Co-Operatives at the Superior Court of Justice for Ontario, 1992-2009

2009· article· en· W582896464 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jeff Schlemmer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Law and Social Policy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvictionJurisdictionDeferenceSubsidyEconomic JusticeSubsidized housingGovernment (linguistics)LegislatureFair Housing ActBusinessLawPublic administrationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Explores the different levels of protection against arbitrary eviction for Ontario residents of subsidized government housing and those living in a housing cooperative or another type of subsidized housing. The difference comes from the evolution of the case law over the last decade, where all evictions from residential tenancies, except housing cooperatives, have been removed from the jurisdiction of courts. This is based on the theory that cooperatives function as "democracies" and residents who accept subsidized housing in a housing cooperative, voluntarily lose the legislative rights that protects all other tenants. This area of law has become unsustainable. The court should remember why it treated eviction cases differently and re-establish previous practices which provided fair and accessible to the poorest of Ontarians serve as trial courts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Law and Social PolicySame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207