MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Working Homeless Men in Calgary, Canada: Hegemony and Identity

2010· article· en· W2077332977 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Steven Persaud, Lynn McIntyre, Katrina Milaney

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Organization · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersHealth CanadaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsBlameHonourSociologyCognitive dissonanceWorking poorIdentity (music)IdeologyGender studiesParticipant observationHegemonyPsychologyPovertySocial psychologyPolitical sciencePoliticsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This purpose of this research is to understand how young adult homeless working men experience homelessness in an oil boom and prosperous city, Calgary, Alberta. Following a period of participant observation, five purposively selected working homeless men aged 20-28 years participated in in-depth individual interviews, which were initiated around their daily food routine. We found that the men experienced moderate to severe food insecurity and reported negative physical health effects, including weight loss, related to their inability to acquire sufficient food to meet work demands. The interviews led to other findings: the men accepted full responsibility for their homelessness, internalized hegemonic ideologies of self-blame, and praised Calgary as a great city, in dissonance with their experience of discrimination and privation. The working homeless men also negotiated their identity through unspoken honour rules and through the construction of an informal system of resources and social networks. Although service providers were described as abundant, the men did not claim any meaningful interactions with them. Our findings suggest that efforts to address homelessness need to consider food needs related to accessible and adequate nutrition for sustaining work but also the ways in which working homeless men see themselves and view their homelessness as they navigate their day-to-day survival.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0340.020
Scholarly communication0.0070.001
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman OrganizationSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207