CANADA AND THE US: PUBLIC HOUSING AND HEALTH POLIClES CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES: AN HISTORICAL AND NEO-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF PUBLIC HOUSING AND HEALTH POLICIES By
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis seeks to explain the way in which assisted housing and health policies evolved in Canada and the United States during four watershed periods: the mid-1940s, the late 1960s, the late 1970s, and the mid-1980s. To achieve this objective, it discusses the concepts of health, the broader determinants of health, disease prevention, and health promotion; it reviews documents which urge that greater attention be paid to the broader determinants of health during policy formulation; and it examines recent studies which stress the value of linking assisted housing and health policies. After an overview of assisted housing and health policy development in Europe, the thesis explores the evolution of these policy fields in Canada and the United States up to the mid-1940s, and investigates the reasons why these nations followed the policy paths they did. Using the neo-institutional approach to explain the complex interplay among the various institutions, actors, and events that affect the public policy process, the thesis discusses eight major institutional and behavioral variables that contribute to the shaping of
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".