Power, Relationships and the Influence of Community Development in Alberta Community Housing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian social housing exists in a web of power dynamics that creates a complex relationship between housing provider landlords and tenants. Housing providers have control over a significant aspect of tenants’ life through the approval and administration of their home. Community development, as a social process aims to inform and redistribute power in unbalanced relationships. Using Calgary Housing Company as a case study and conducting semi-structured interviews with staff and tenants, this thesis answers the question how are power relations between Alberta community housing landlords and tenants impacted by community development practises/projects? Findings indicate that power dynamics vary depending on how power is viewed, but that both groups feel a power imbalance in the relationship. The results suggest community development practices do impact the power relations, but such practices are understood and used more deliberately by landlords while tenants view the practises more inherently personal. Practical recommendations to help redistribute power are suggested in the conclusion of this work, including the need for further research into the relationship between social housing landlords and tenants.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".