MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125251340 · doi:10.1080/13676261.2012.663892

Love without a home: a portrait of romantic and couple relationships among street-involved young adults in Montreal

2012· article· en· W2125251340 on OpenAlexaffabout
Martin Blais, Philippe-Benoît Côté, Hélène Manseau, Michel Martel, Marie-Andrée Provencher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Youth Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRomanceMeaning (existential)PsychologyPortraitIdentity (music)Social psychologySociologyDevelopmental psychologyGender studiesAestheticsPsychoanalysisArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Few studies have explored love relationships among street-involved young adults. Unstructured interviews were conducted with 42 street-involved young adults, aged between 18 and 32 years (mean age = 23), about their love and sexual life. Themes were identified in the interviews with their corresponding kernels of meaning, and these kernels of meaning were then grouped into conceptual categories on the basis of their conceptual proximity. Five main conceptual categories emerged: (1) past relationships get in the way; (2) a romantic view of love dominates; (3) love is not always the main or the only motivation; (4) romance and the street do not mix well; and (5) hoping for love when the present seems dark. The interviews suggest that although there are many challenges facing the love life of street-involved young adults, love relationships can also contribute positively to the identity of these people by helping them to look at themselves differently and to consider alternatives to life on the street.

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)0.001
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 score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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