Further Validation of the Pathways Housing First Fidelity Scale
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
OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether Housing First fidelity ratings correspond to program operation descriptions from administrative data and predict client outcomes. METHODS: A multisite, randomized controlled trial (At Home/Chez Soi) in five Canadian cities included two assessments of 12 programs over two years. Outcomes for 1,158 clients were measured every six months. Associations between fidelity ratings and administrative data (Spearman correlations) and participant outcomes (mixed-effects modeling) were examined. RESULTS: Fidelity ratings were generally good (mean ± SD=136.6 ± 10.3 out of a possible range of 38-152; 87% of maximum value). Fidelity was significantly associated with three of four measures of program operation, with correlations between .55 and .60. Greater program fidelity was associated with improvement in housing stability, community functioning, and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in program fidelity was associated with operations and outcomes, supporting scale validity and intervention effectiveness. These findings reinforced the value of using fidelity monitoring to conduct quality assurance and technical assistance activities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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