Best Practices in Policy Creation and Administration in Meeting Housing Needs for People with Disabilities and Their Families: A Case Study in Ottawa County, Michigan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For people with disabilities across the spectrum of disability categories, there is a need for better understanding of current and projected housing needs options. What housing, programs and policies exist to serve the disability community? How are policies and programs for people with disabilities, their families and caregivers being implemented? What gaps remain in the knowledge about housing and disability as well as in policy and implementation/administration arenas surrounding housing for people with disabilities and their families? Through a participatory action process, this project seeks to improve understanding and policy and program recommendations on housing options for the disability community. The topics identified as central to housing for the disability community that need better understanding include affordability of housing, accessibility, available individual supports and access to community amenities, such as transportation, that exist or are lacking. Through review of current data and a collection of new data in the form of a case study from Ottawa County, Michigan, this project will work to improve understanding and create a set of recommendations regarding housing options for people with disabilities, their families, and their caregivers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".