MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2335998249 · doi:10.14288/1.0093792

One parent families : their housing needs

2010· article· en· W2335998249 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nancy Hood

Notice bibliographique

RevuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPublic housingEconomic growthEconomics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The work began as a response to a question put forth by a person involved with housing for single parents, "What is the best kind of housing for one parent families?" In answer to this question the accommodation requirements of this group must be explored. The purpose of this thesis is to delineate these needs and to suggest ways in which these housing needs should be met. The Canadian work on single parents (Canadian Council on Social Development, 1972; Guyatt, 1972; Schlesinger, 1975) does not focus specifically on housing but does identify it as a problem or issue for the single parent group. In keeping with the methodologies of the first two studies cited, a survey of organizations which serve one parent families was conducted. In addition two case studies of housing projects in the Vancouver-Victoria area, the YWCA Group Homes and the Bishop Cridge Xejntre for jthe_jFjrm£ly^ formed part of the research design. Findings were obtained through questionnaires, interviews and group meetings. Some of the encounters were video-taped to be used later in feeding back the results to the study participants. Through these feedback sessions and analysis of the findings of a literature review, the survey of organizations and the two case studies, a number of conclusions were drawn. These conclusions about the housing needs of one parent families were presented in terms of four issues which repeatedly emerged in the research: Income Discrimination Isolation versus Integration Childcare and Support Services. Insufficient income was found to be the greatest housing problem for the one parent family. A universal income maintenance scheme would ameliorate this problem with the fewest possible distasteful side affects for the client group. However, if this is not feasible alternate schemes for single parent families are suggested. Discrimination because they are parents on their own and because they have children was also a great concern. Landlord rejection because of single parent status can be discouraged by bringing such injustices to the attention of the Human Rights Commission. The real answer to this problem however lies in a societal change in attitude towards single parenthood. Isolation versus Integration refers to the controversy about housing designed especially for a client group or housing people unidentifiably within the context of the rest of the community. It was found that both approaches not either alone, are required to meet the divergent needs of one parent families. An integrated approach to the delivery of services for single parent families is required with both patterns of housing. Co-ordination would ensure that through the private and public sectors a system of services from crisis or transition shelters to housing subsidies would be available. Childcare and support services are the second greatest need expressed by the single parent. Both of these services permit the parent to gain independence. The integration of these into the residential environment would achieve this in the most efficient way possible. Suggestions regarding the funding and the location of service facilities are also proffered. All of these issues have been discussed elsewhere. What is significant is that these issues are identified as housing needs. These issues are inextricably linked in the minds of the single parents who must make decisions about housing. This interrelationship points to the holistic approach necessary in the delivery of housing services to one parent families.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,034
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,068

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0010,002
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,197
Écart entre enseignants0,183 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Même sujetMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesTravaux en français237 207