"Everybody should have choice": Municipal & Regional Planning, Social Policy, and Housing Options for Disabled Persons in Waterloo Region, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze how municipal planning impacts housing options for disabled people in the Waterloo region of Ontario. Through analysis of relevant local and provincial planning-related documents as well as key informant interviews, it is determined that despite increased focus on ‘accessibility’ and ‘inclusion’ in high level planning documents, that group homes for disabled residents continue to be subject to minimum separation requirements within some area municipalities. Alarmingly, despite an increasingly broad definition of disability at the provincial and federal levels of government, many municipal planning documents focus primarily on accessibility for wheelchair users – excluding a significant proportion of disabled individuals. While regional and municipal planners may play an indirect role in the provision of housing for disabled people, they are restricted by provincial legislation that limits municipal powers. Thus, planning is best understood as a local layer of social policy in a complicated web of disability-related legal frameworks, including housing and accessibility policies. Evidence demonstrates that demand for publicly subsidized housing for disabled people far outstrip supply, a phenomenon exacerbated by the rising cost of housing across Canada and government retrenchment from social service provision. True universal access, or a right-based approaches to housing, healthcare, and social services, would drastically improve housing choices for disabled individuals.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".