MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1603416994 · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2009.1385

Characteristics of Home: Perspectives of Women Who Are Homeless

2014· article· en· W1603416994 on OpenAlexafffund
Christine A. Walsh, Gayle Rutherford, Natasha Kuzmak

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsPhotovoiceParticipatory action researchConstruct (python library)Qualitative researchPerspective (graphical)SociologyPerceptionCitizen journalismFutures contractWomen of colorPsychologyGender studiesSocial scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We employed participatory, community-based research methods to explore the perceptions of home among women who are homeless. Twenty women engaged in one or more techniques including qualitative interviews, digital story telling, creative writing, photovoice, and design charrette to characterize their perceptions of home. Analysis of the data revealed themes related to the physical, affective, and external environment. By understanding how participants perceive home and the qualities they deem necessary for home, we can begin to construct home from both a service and design perspective that meets womens needs for stable, safe housing and home, and also gain a better understanding of what is needed to assist women in exiting homelessness and building more sustainable futures for themselves and their families.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.413 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Qualitative ReportSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207