Bibliographic record
Abstract
Homelessness has been described as a crisis within Canada; yet little published research has described the extent and nature of homelessness within communities in northeastern Ontario, Canada. A period prevalence count was conducted of the homeless population using emergency shelters, social service agencies, and other services in the City of Timmins, in northeastern Ontario, Canada. The total homeless population (high-risk and absolutely homeless) identified in the study (n=720) included 257 infants, children and adolescents under age 15 even though the majority of homeless people were adults. Overall, more than a third of homeless people reported Indigenous background. The most frequently reported source of income was the Ontario Disabilities Support Program (31%). Taken together, the central reasons pertained to structural and systemic problems of unemployment, problems with social assistance, and the lack of affordable housing accounted for the largest proportion of homelessness. Absolutely homeless people made up close to a third of the homeless people who used the services of the participating agencies. Nearly half were women. Children and youth up to the age of 19 comprised half of this population. When the number of women with children and youth under age 20 are combined, they constitute about two-thirds of those who are absolutely homeless in Timmins. The findings are discussed in relation to the potential for raising awareness of this issue at the local and regional levels.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".