MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1820196453 · doi:10.7870/cjcmh-2013-017

Understanding the Journey Through Homelessness: A Hermeneutic Study of Women Without Children

2013· article· en· W1820196453 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Joseph C. Osuji, Sandra P. Hirst

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Community Mental Health · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHopefulnessSnowball samplingLived experienceFeelingMeaning (existential)HermeneuticsDisconnectionPerspective (graphical)Participant observationPsychologySociologyCoping (psychology)Social psychologyGender studiesDevelopmental psychologyPsychoanalysisPsychotherapistMedicineEpistemologySocial scienceArtVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored the meaning of the experience of homelessness and exiting homelessness among women without children. Convenience and snowball sampling techniques were used to recruit 12 women in an urban centre in Canada. Texts resulting from audiotaped interviews, participant observations, and reflective journal entries constituted data for analysis. Gadamerian hermeneutics informed the interpretive method used for analysis. The analysis yielded 5 subthemes that described the journey: (a) loss of self at home: the trigger; (b) non-feeling of “at-homeness”: dissociation; (c) disconnection and aloneness: homelessness; (d) simulating home: transitional shelter living; and (e) finding oneself: hopefulness. Findings suggest that exiting homelessness for women was a journey in search of hope, and reconnection with the self and others. This perspective suggests a new approach for policy and practice.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0250.019
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Community Mental HealthSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207