Collaborate for a multidisciplinary and intersectoral vision of homelessness: a case study of local initiatives in Quebec
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In the early 200s, several multidisciplinary initiatives emerged in Quebec as part of a broader reflection on how to address homelessness in an intersectoral manner. While the literature provides analyses and descriptions of various initiatives aimed at tackling homelessness and their effects, there is little research on the mechanisms and processes by which multi-level, cross-sector initiatives collaborate. Even less research addresses the initial conditions that may or may not favor such collaboration. Yet homelessness, with its multiple causes and the complex needs of those experiencing it, has prompted inter-professional and intersectoral responses that should be studied to understand the implementation of local policies.At the level of public action, housing, social and health services, employment, etc., are all involved. But how does this translate into the implementation of local policies? What are the challenges for local stakeholders in combating homelessness at the clinical, community, and strategic levels? What are the effects and adaptations since COVID-9?To answer these questions, we will focus on concrete cases in several Quebec municipalities: local initiatives involving intersectoral and collaborative governance arrangements from clinical, integrated care, social, community, and other perspectives for people experiencing homelessness. We will examine the factors that enable these initiatives to take root and develop, as well as the constraints and tensions involved in implementing these intersectoral or collaborative arrangements, such as funding methods, expertise, legitimization processes, and political windows of opportunity. This presentation is based on research conducted since 207 by Lara Maillet's team. It relies particularly on a developmental evaluation with the directly concerned clinical and community environments (research partners) and on some forty interviews and participant observations. The goal of the presentation is to present and discuss the results with the communities of practice attending the conference and to identify potential avenues for scaling up in other areas in the interest of equity and social justice.The results show that the cases studied provide contrasting examples of models at the intersection of community and intersectoral responses, and integrated inter-organizational team responses. Above all, the research highlights the local determinants that influenced the implementation of the initiatives and the adaptations that led to the development of two distinct modes of governance. Temporality, funding types, power relationships between organizations, and the management of interdependencies between players are central to understanding the dynamics. These elements allow us to reflect on the coherence of adaptive systems, resilience, and sustainability.We believe that a strong, autonomous model rooted in intersectorality provides a more robust and resilient response to the changing needs of the population. These questions are even more pertinent in a period of crisis such as the COVID-9 pandemic, when adaptation and collaboration were essential.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,031 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».