Homeless and incarcerated: An epidemiological study from Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Incarceration and homelessness are closely related yet studied rarely. This article aimed to study the incarcerated homeless and identify specific vulnerabilities, which rendered them different from the nonincarcerated homeless. It also aimed to describe the homeless population and its significant involvement with the criminal justice and enforcement system. METHODS: Data were derived from the British Columbia Health of the Homeless Study (BCHOHS), carried out in three cities in British Columbia, Canada: the large urban center Vancouver (n = 250), Victoria (n = 150) and Prince George (n = 100). Measures included socio-demographic information, the Maudsley Addiction Profile (MAP), the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) Plus. RESULTS: Incarcerated homeless were more often male (66.6%), were in foster care (56.4%) and had greater substance use especially of crack cocaine (69.6%) and crystal methamphetamine (78.7%). They also had greater scores on emotional and sexual abuse domains of CTQ, indicating greater abuse. A higher prevalence of depression (57%) and psychotic disorders (55.3%) was also observed. Risk factors identified which had a positive predictor value were male gender (p < .001; odds ratio (OR) = 2.8; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.7-4.4), a diagnosis of depression (p = .02; 95% CI: 1.1-4.4) and severe emotional neglect (p = .02; 95% CI: 1.1-3.2) in the childhood. CONCLUSION: Homeless individuals may be traumatized at an early age, put into foster care, rendered homeless, initiated into substance use and re-traumatized on repeated occasions in adult life, rendering them vulnerable to incarceration and mental illness.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".