Co-housing for stages of an aging Britain.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of diverse types of common interest or intentional communities has burgeoned over the past quarter century both in North America and in Europe, but especially in Scandinavia and the Netherlands. This paper will examine aspects of the particular legal environment for a nascent but growing CoHousing movement within the UK. Features of associated ownership, limitations on individuals’ land use through mutually binding contractual mechanisms and frameworks of positive mutual duties that characterise the legal documents used by or having potential utility for two different British CoHousing communities will be explored. The potential that emerging and adapted legal models of co-housing have for addressing issues arising from the housing and care needs of older people, especially older women and the attraction of CoHousing to families with children, will be discussed. Some potential future legal issues for UK CoHousing will be identified and its contribution to sustainable communities will be evaluated.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".