© 2010 Urban Studies Journal Limited DOI: 10.1177/0042098010366743
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The book denounces a purely private approach to housing as destructive to the individual and society as a whole. It argues that providing hous-ing mainly for its exchange value sucks people with low incomes into further poverty, damages the spatial configuration of cities and polarises society. The various authors point to these ten-dencies in the case studies and note the reactions to these problems. In some cases, Sweden for example, there has been little resistance to this destructiveness of neo-liberal housing policy ini-tiatives, mainly because of the complexity of the issues and the time-lag between policy change and effect (p. 188). However, in other countries like New Zealand (pp. 203–205) and the US (pp. 246–250), there have been public outcry, demonstrations and litigation in response to the shift from relatively public-sector-led hous-ing policies to neo-liberal housing policies. In Canada, the resistance has even been militant: the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) is said to have resisted the brutality of neo-liberal housing policies by using an approach that is “direct, confrontational and controversial” (p. 272). There have been counter-reactions from the state. In New Zealand, for example, the state responded by sometimes passing retrospective legislation—a highly repugnant practice in law—to legitimise its actions (p. 204). In Dundee, Scotland (one of the two UK case studies, the other being Leeds), evidence is presented to show how the state could manipu-late ‘legitimate ’ measures like participation and consultation with tenants to legitimise its actions (see, for example, pp. 130-131). Despite attempts by the state to frustrate progressive housing policy, the struggle for social housing has recorded some successes in almost all the cases presented in the book. Such dynamics suggest that
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.775 | 0.543 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".