Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This report documents the implementation of the Mental Health Commission of Canada's At Home/Chez Soi project in Winnipeg.It reports on the viewpoints and perspectives of the site's stakeholders concerning the fidelity of the Site to its original plans; formative issues related to successes and challenges; stakeholder relationships; the involvement of participants; issues related to Site resources; and the influences and consequences of the local Site context in terms of adaptations made to Winnipeg Site and the resources upon which it has drawn.The report is the result of a series of interviews and focus groups facilitated by researchers at the Institute of Urban Studies at the University of Winnipeg.The report begins with an assessment of the homelessness situation in Winnipeg prior to the implementation of the study, as well as a discussion regarding the nature of the study's participants.The report then considers project theory from the perspectives of service philosophy, processes, staff requirements and outcomes.The major components of housing and the three service arms are seen by most to be of equal value, in the sense that one part cannot work without the other.The primary theme emerging from the interviews and focus groups is of the importance of relationships and communication.While there is much that are positive with both, there are some issues.Service teams are unsure if they're getting the information that the research teams need, yet without detailed information from Research there have been problems in housing participants.There are good and mutually rewarding relationships in place with many of external organizations, and relationships with community groups have improved.The cultural component that the service arms have adopted has been very important for the Winnipeg site.Positive social outcomes for participants and within the community are evident, and much of these successes is owed to the excellent staff and many instances of supportive working relationships.At the same time, there are some structural issues and internal communication problems that could be addressed.The major cross-cutting themes emerging from the project are that relationships are essential; that the Site has adapted well to its local context; that communication between Service Arms and research could be improved; that there have been some significant delays; and that stronger informational and communication connections could be made.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».