Reforming Federal Indian Housing Programs: The Socio-Cultural, Political, & Health Benefits of Utilizing Indigenous Epistemologies & Architecture
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
abstract: The relationship between settler-colonial governments and Indigenous nations has been a contentious one, filled with disingenuity and fueled by the abuse of power dynamics. Specifically, colonial governments have repeatedly used power in mapping, cultural Othering, resource control, and research methodologies to assimilate, acculturate, or otherwise dominate every aspect of Indigenous lives. A relatively recent pushback from Indigenous peoples led to the slow reclamation of sovereignty, including in the United States. Revamped federal Indian programs allegedly promote tribal self-determination, yet they paradoxically serve a vast quantity of cultures through singular blanket programs that are blind to the cultural component of Indigenous identity - the centerfold of colonial aggression for centuries. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Public and Indian Housing is no exception, using a Western framework to provide generic services that neither serve cultural needs nor are tailored to the specific environment traditional homes were historically and epistemologically suited for. This research analyzes the successes of new programs as well as the failures of the federal government to conduct responsible research and promote the authentic self-determination of tribes in terms of housing and urban development. It also considers the successes and failures of tribes to effectively engage in program reformation negotiation, community planning, and accountability measures to ensure their communities are served with enough culturally-appropriate, sustainable housing without mistrusting their own housing entities. Solutions for revising this service gap are proposed, adhering to a framework that centers diverse cultural values, community input, and functional design to increase each tribe’s implementation of self-determination in HUD housing programs.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it