MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030565705 · doi:10.1017/s0047279411000572

Intimate Relationships as Routes into and out of Homelessness: Insights from a Canadian City

2011· article· en· W2030565705 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marion E. Jones, Micheal L. Shier, John R. Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Social Policy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic violencePerceptionSociologyPsychologyCriminologySuicide preventionPoison controlMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The literature on homelessness tends to focus on risk factors in people's social and personal lives that contribute to their situation of being without a permanent home. Alternatively, the following describes innate factors of intimate relationships that contribute to a situation of homelessness for men and women. We conducted interviews with 61 people experiencing homelessness in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. We were particularly interested in documenting with greater specificity their perceptions of their individual pathways to and from homelessness. Three themes emerged from the data describing the intersection between respondents’ intimate relationships and their situation of homelessness: (1) relationship breakdown; (2) the role and impact of having intimate partners during a period of homelessness; and (3) the nature of the intimate relationship and its impact on housing. The data suggest that aspects of intimate relationships should be considered by social service agencies when addressing a person's situation of 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0490.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Social PolicySame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207