Three Quarter Houses: The View from the Inside
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Three-Quarter Houses: The View from the Inside" is the first systematic and comprehensive study of Three-Quarter Housing in New York City. The problem of housing New York City's most vulnerable individuals has given rise to a growing market of privately operated, for-profit residences known as Three-Quarter Houses. For all intents and purposes, these houses have become an informal extension of the City's apparatus for keeping vulnerable men and women off of the streets. Yet they lack any formal regulation or oversight, rendering the houses invisible to most citizens and policymakers.The report's findings are based on 317 known addresses and first-hand accounts of 43 current or recent residents of the houses. The report paints a harrowing picture of the conditions in these dwellings. The residents tend to be in the midst of major life transitions; most are returning home from jail or prison, recovering from short-term hospital or residential substance abuse treatment, battling with street homelessness, and/or struggling with unemployment, family crises, or medical issues. The houses are over-crowded, lack basic fire safety and health provisions, and are exploitative of their residents. And thousands of New Yorkers rely on them, prefer them to shelters, and desperately do not want them closed. The findings of PRI's research on Three-Quarter Houses are troubling indications of what occurs when the city's poorest and most marginalized individuals are left with no affordable or accessible housing options and must instead fend for themselves in an unregulated, informal housing market.The research was carried out by the Prisoner Reentry Institute (PRI) of John Jay College, in collaboration with MFY Legal Services, Inc., Neighbors Together, the Legal Action Center, and the Three-Quarter House Tenant Organizing Project, with technical assistance from the Furman Center of Real Estate and Public Policy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".