The Challenge of a “Triple Diagnosis”: Identifying and Serving Homeless <scp>C</scp>anadian Adults With a Dual Diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adults with both a mental illness and intellectual disability (in Canada, a “dual diagnosis”) and who reside in shelters for the homeless are vulnerable and at risk for physical, sexual, and financial abuse. The same factors that make them vulnerable may result in neglect by the very services designed to help them. Their mental illnesses are difficult to diagnose and treat, and their intellectual impairments are difficult to ascertain. The authors review the existing literature on homelessness and intellectual disability, and use this and their extensive clinical experience with the homeless in a large Canadian city to identify and extrapolate reasons for the challenges facing both these individuals and the agencies and organizations that serve them. The authors identify several challenges to providing appropriate services, such as identifying and linking with these adults; recognizing the implications of the level of the intellectual delay and the mental illness on the individual's ability to cope, and stay safe; understanding the wants and needs of the individual; expanding the mandate of the agencies and professionals wanting to serve this group; and developing policy that will both provide appropriate support of the individual, but also provide protection, if necessary by legal means. They further suggest that focal services should be based on the following characteristics: flexibility, meeting the client where he or she lives, consideration of capacity to consent in order to avoid neglect issues, and understanding of the lifelong and pervasive effects of intellectual delay in all facets of life. Though the population discussed is resident in Canada, these issues apply to individuals in other countries, as well, where there are concerns about these vulnerable adults with a “triple diagnosis.”
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".