Housing cooperatives : the lived experience in an alternative tenure.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This main purpose of the thesis is to investigate the lived experiences of residents in eight housing co-operatives, four in Australia, two in the United States and two in Canada. The thesis gives the primary voice to the residents which enable them to convey their experiences as consumers of housing through their narratives. The secondary aim of the thesis is to ask how, and by what means, can housing cooperatives in Australia become more widespread and contribute to the country’s affordable housing stock? Affordable housing has been the subject of much public and policy debate in Australia. Housing cooperatives are an extremely small contributor in the low to moderate income housing sector in Australia and are usually associated with the public housing sector. Research was also undertaken in the United States and Canada because these countries have long-established housing cooperative sectors which may provide valuable lessons, transferable models and suggestions for alternative methods of funding. The thesis findings are presented through the lens of self-selection, residential satisfaction, quality of life, social capital, and physical and ontological security. Barriers to the formation of housing cooperatives in Australia are identified. The overseas research suggests the possibility of transferable financial models. Alternative forms of housing cooperatives situated outside of the public housing realm are proposed in order to grow the sector and make this type of affordable housing more widely available to Australians.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".