Collaborative approaches to addressing homelessness in Canada: Value and challenge in the community advisory board model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade Canadian municipalities have seen the emergence of formalised systemslevel collaborative approaches to addressing homelessness and housing issues. The implementation of such approaches has been widespread and to some extent standardised based on the form of 'community advisory boards' (CABs) created by federal government through the Homelessness Partnering Secretariat. These committees have significantly affected systems-level strategic planning to address homelessness in urban, rural, and remote areas across the country. Despite significant impact and some success, these groups also face challenges related to effective collaboration and governance. There may be benefit to evaluation as well as comparative analysis at international levels, exploring the experiences and lessons of mandated systems-level homelessness collaboration across borders.
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 | 0.032 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".