Secure Occupancy: conceptual foundations and comparative perspectives: Final Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report is concerned with the nature of housing occupancy for households that rent, particularly low-income and vulnerable households. It describes and compares provisions for secure occupancy across a variety of rental systems in Australia and similarly developed countries, and attempts to interpret to what extent such provisions are adequate and appropriate to the needs of households, especially those who rely on renting for significant periods (or all) of their lives. To inform and broaden consideration of this current policy issue in Australia, the study's methodology has been designed to enable an assessment of the means by, and the extent to which, secure occupancy in rental housing is provided in a cross-section of local and international jurisdictions. The primary aims of the study are to explore how different types of rental systems shape the nature of occupancy, and to generate new ways of thinking about secure occupancy and policy settings to help promote this in Australia. facilitate the study's comparative approach, the Australian authors have worked in close collaboration with a group of international housing research colleagues (named in Table 4) with expertise in one or more of the eight national and provincial jurisdictions that have been selected for comparison. These are: Austria New Jersey (US) Flanders (Belgium) Ontario (Canada) Germany Scotland Ireland 8. The Netherlands. As the rental systems of these countries differ considerably, they provide a rich laboratory for exploring ways that secure occupancy is shaped by multiple factors, including historical conditions, market functioning, cultural influences and institutional settings, and generate a variety of challenging ideas about how rental systems might best support the housing needs of their residents, while also encouraging appropriate and secure levels of rental investment. A concise summary of the rental system and policies of each of these case studies can be found in Appendix 1. These summaries are provided to complement the thematic analysis that is adopted in the body of the report. The international case studies were augmented by local research on the current framework for secure occupancy in Australia, as well as by a more in-depth review of the situation in two jurisdictions (New South Wales and Victoria), which was conducted by the authors.
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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".