"It's Important to be Proud of the Place You Live In": Housing Problems and Preferences of Psychiatric Survivors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TOPIC: It is important to understand housing and mental health issues from the perspective of psychiatric survivors. This paper reports findings from a series of focus group meetings held with survivors of mental illness to address issues concerning housing preferences and housing needs. METHODS: The discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using an ethnographic method of analysis. The themes that emerged related to oppression, social networks and social supports, housing conditions, poverty and finances, and accessing services. Participants described the ongoing stigma, discrimination, and poverty that reduced their access to safe, adequate housing. FINDINGS: They preferred independent housing where supports would be available as needed. Participants described the dilemma of having to choose between the housing they wanted and the supports they needed, since supports were often contingent upon living in a less desirable housing situation. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses and other mental healthcare workers need to be aware of these issues for discharge planning, community support, and ongoing advocacy. The survivor voices need to be heard by decision-makers at various levels of government in order for housing policy to become more receptive to their realities.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it