Australia's hidden homeless: community-based approaches to asylum seeker homelessness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The complex immigration status of asylum seekers applying for protection, combined with having to compete with Australian residents for government-funded housing, can result in multiple barriers to secure housing for refugees. The majority of asylum seekers in Australia live lawfully in the community on bridging visas while they await resolution of their asylum claims. More than half of these asylum seekers have no access to a government-funded financial safety net or a sustained independent income. As this research demonstrates, many experience homelessness as a result. In-depth interviews with agencies working with asylum seekers in Australia identified a critical lack of housing and support for asylum seekers, resulting in health and welfare disadvantage that can impede the process of resolving their immigration status. The exploration of international models of asylum housing in the UK, Sweden and Canada revealed that a domestic legislative framework governing housing for asylum seekers significantly enhances access to safe and secure housing. Housing reception standards and a national service delivery framework arise from such a legislative context in these countries. Without such a framework, and given the exclusion of asylum seekers from the national strategic agenda for reducing homelessness in Australia, a robust service delivery framework for the provision of asylum housing is non-existent in this country. This research shows that, consistent with Australia’s human rights obligations, Australia needs a more humanitarian response to homelessness experienced by asylum seekers living in the community and the factors that give rise to it. A model for a medium-term solution is proposed, with a focus on an integrated service delivery approach utilising existing expertise in the Australian context.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".