One Bad Board Away from Bankruptcy: Housing Co-operatives, Self-Management, and the Landlord–Tenant Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores the development of the natural condition of co-operation into a large, apolitical movement and the effects of reshaping working-class people into co-operators. Semi- structured interviews, content analysis, and a limited autoethnography through a community- based action research paradigm, as well as a genealogical method, are used. A working-class analysis is applied throughout. \nIn Ontario, residents of housing co-operatives are not considered tenants, following a history of legislation, legal precedents, and lobbying efforts by the co-op housing federations. This fact is manifested through the use of language, the shaping of co-op resident subjectivities, legal protections for residents, and the shunning of traditional tenant organizing direct action tactics to fight evictions and harassment. \nSix residents from five large-scale housing co-ops in Ontario participated in this research. Their experiences are compared and contrasted to the experiences of eight residents from seven housing co-ops in the Milton-Parc neighbourhood of Montreal. All 12 housing co-ops were created through state funding programs according to co-op corporation legislation. Residents of the Ontario co-ops expressed having few options when facing issues with their board of directors and staff. Residents are held responsible for the self-management of their housing project yet are encouraged to hire management staff. The Milton-Parc co-ops are small to medium-scale, they formed as a result of years of community organizing to save their neighbourhood from demolition, tenant participation is mandatory, there are no hired staff, and evictions are a lot less common. This research determines the landlord–tenant relationship is reproduced in all housing co-ops but is reshaped in order to circumvent class conflict. As such, traditional tenant organizing direct action tactics should be employed against co-op boards of directors and staff.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".