MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Empowerment Through Design? Housing Cooperatives for Women in Montreal

2025· book-chapter· en· W7127198110 on OpenAlex
İpek Türeli

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Press eBooks · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCollaborative and Sustainable Housing Initiatives
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpowermentContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)SolidarityGeneral partnershipDowntownPublic housingInvestment (military)Unintended consequences

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Focusing on the architecture of three co-ops in Montreal established to support women in the 1978–88 period, this chapter examines the relationship between empowerment and design in the context of gender-conscious cooperative housing. Deindustrialisation from the 1960s was coupled with downtown renewal, which effectively meant many low-income, working-class neighbourhoods were wholesale cleared for new projects. The housing cooperative emerged as a viable model to protect access to housing. Against this backdrop, women in various government and non-profit positions helped each other and other women in precarious housing situations to establish housing co-ops for women. Feminist proponents of permanent and affordable women’s housing argued that housing was central to women’s emancipation, that is, to the designing of ‘non-sexist’ cities. The chapter treats the built environment of the co-ops as evidence to study if and how residents transformed their surroundings, and complements this with qualitative interviews with former and current residents to understand how the physical environment has, in turn, shaped their lives. While the co-op movement characterises itself as a type of solidarity network with open membership, the quality of architecture, or the deficiency thereof, in a social environment with already scarce resources can lead to tensions among member-residents. However, the historical housing co-ops, as well as ongoing initiatives to establish new women’s co-ops, demonstrate the need and desire to pursue intersectional housing justice via the cooperative model, and the chapter’s findings point to the need for increased attention to and investment in architectural design.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it