Including people who experience homelessness: a scoping review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Without the voices of those impacted by homelessness, there is a risk that important understandings essential to the development of effective solutions to homelessness will remain obscured. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the evidence base and insights into recommendations for development and implementation of policies and practices to promote meaningful involvement of people experiencing homelessness as part of a community response to homelessness in a mid‐size Canadian city. Design/methodology/approach A scoping literature review was conducted, focusing on homelessness and social exclusion/inclusion. Findings Based on this review, the authors provide insights into the processes of social exclusion and inclusion as a beginning place for developing strategies for meaningful engagement in community responses to homelessness. Roots of social exclusion, towards social inclusion and creating social inclusion were three themes which emerged as central to developing inclusionary policy. First, the roots of social exclusion associated with homelessness are located in unequal power relations, highlighting contextual factors that produce exclusion with implications for health and well‐being. Second, towards social inclusion, reflects theoretical perspectives and principles that have been used to inform inclusionary practices. Third, creating inclusion highlights some strategies that can support inclusion for people experiencing homelessness and foster development of inclusionary policy. Originality/value There is little evidence of effective practices that promote social inclusion or attention to specific strategies that engage diverse homeless populations that account for gender, ethnicity and other important differences. A key next step is the development of guidelines for social inclusion at the organizational and municipal levels of decision making with those impacted by homelessness.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".