The Implementation of Gender-inclusive Housing at ACUHO-I Member Institutions: A Second Look
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GENDER-INCLUSIVE HOUSING (GIH) continues to grow as an option for consideration atcolleges and universities across the U.S. A follow-up to a 2016 study by Taub and colleagues wasconducted to gauge and assess developmental growth trends of GIH within campus housing. Amajority of 184 participants (n = 129) reported that their institution has either implemented a fullor trial GIH program, while another quarter (n = 48) reported being in the discussion stage. Onlysix respondents reported not having considered GIH at all in their housing procedures. These datashow that, compared to the conclusions of previous studies, a more pronounced movement towardimplementation of GIH is occurring beyond the stage of simple discussions. The most commonobstacles that institutions reported about the implementation of GIH were parent/family concerns,public relations concerns, and lack of suitable housing facilities. Similar to the 2016 study by Tauband colleagues, current policies related to gender-inclusive housing at participating institutionswere further analyzed.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".