Network collaboration of organizations for homeless individuals in the Montreal region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We know little about the intensity and determinants of interorganisational collaboration within the homeless network. This study describes the characteristics and relationships (along with the variables predicting their degree of interorganisational collaboration) of 68 organisations of such a network in Montreal (Quebec, Canada). THEORY AND METHODS: Data were collected primarily through a self-administered questionnaire. Descriptive analyses were conducted followed by social network and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The Montreal homeless network has a high density (50.5%) and a decentralised structure and maintains a mostly informal collaboration with the public and cross-sectorial sectors. The network density showed more frequent contacts among four types of organisations which could point to the existence of cliques. Four variables predicted interorganisational collaboration: organisation type, number of services offered, volume of referrals and satisfaction with the relationships with public organisations. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION: The Montreal homeless network seems adequate to address non-complex homelessness problems. Considering, however, that most homeless individuals present chronic and complex profiles, it appears necessary to have a more formal and better integrated network of homeless organisations, particularly in the health and social service sectors, in order to improve services.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".