MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7052965773

Strategies for Successfully Marketing and Stabilizing the Occupancy of Mixed-Income/Mixed-Race Properties: A Case Study of Cedar Beech and Elm Street Properties in Manchester, New Hamsphire

2005· report· en· W7052965773 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIssue Lab (Candid) · 2005
Typereport
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsidyBeechQuarter (Canadian coin)OccupancyService (business)ApartmentAffordable housingProperty tax
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cedar Beech and the two Elm Street properties make up 92 units of mixed-income, mixed-race multifamily housing in Manchester, New Hampshire. Almost half of the residents have incomes below 30 percent of area median income, while a quarter have incomes between 51 and 80 percent of median and a small number (8 percent) have incomes above 80 percent of area median income.The properties were developed and are owned by Manchester Neighborhood Housing Services (MNHS) as part of that non-profit organization's mission to stabilize and revitalize city neighborhoods and to provide affordable housing. Cedar Beech was redeveloped and placed in service as a Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and HOME property in 1994. The properties on Elm Street were placed in service in 2001 with subsidies from LIHTC, HOME, and the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston's Affordable Housing Program.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it