Homelessness among older people: Assessing strategies and frameworks across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Homelessness among older people is expected to rise as a result of unmet need and demographic change. Yet, strategies and responses to homelessness across Canada tend to focus on younger groups, overlooking the circumstances and needs of older people (i.e., age 50+). This article reports the results of a content analysis of government planning documents on homelessness conducted in 2014. A total of 42 local, provincial, and federal strategies were reviewed to assess the extent to which they recognized and targeted the needs of older people. Our review resulted in three categories of documents: 1) documents with no discussion of homelessness among older people (n=16; 38%); 2) documents with a minimal discussion of homelessness among older people (n=22; 55%); and 3) documents with a significant discussion of homelessness among older people (n=4; 7%). Results indicate that while many strategies are beginning to consider older people as a subgroup with unique needs, little action has been taken to develop comprehensive services and supports for this group. We conclude with a call to integrate the needs of diverse groups of older people into strategies to end homelessness and to develop programs and responses that are suitable for older people.
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 | 0.027 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".