MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2525916429

Deciding How to Get By: Subsistence Choices among Homeless Youth in Toronto

2012· dissertation· en· W2525916429 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Tyler Frederick

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2012
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsSubsistence agricultureSociologyPsychologyGeographyGender studiesArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation develops insights into subsistence related decision-making from the perspective of homeless and street involved young people themselves through 39 in-depth and life story interviews. The interviews provide insight into two important and underexplored questions: how the social organization of street spaces shapes street life and subsistence; and how the self is implicated in subsistence related decision-making. To address these questions the analysis develops a conceptual model based on field theory (Bourdieu 1984; Green 2008; Martin 2003) that conceptualizes “the street” as a collection of interlocking subfields—unique social terrains structured at the intersection of various social forces that position actors relative to one another and that orient actors towards particular approaches to street life. The core concepts of field theory—field, capital, and habitus—provide insight into how the unique social spaces of homelessness distribute resources, stratify actors, and provide discourses that frame practice. The analysis demonstrates the strength of this approach through case studies of three such subfields in Toronto. Further, the analysis extends the field framework, and contributes to research on the role of the self in street life, by examining how narratives influence the navigation of street spaces. Actors use narratives to make sense of their circumstances and to invest lines of action with a sense of personal meaning. This narrative perspective is integrated with a dual process approach to action (Vaisey 2009) that states that action is influenced by internalized dispositions formed through experience and upbringing (habitus), as well as through available cultural resources that underwrite and legitimize courses of practice. I extend this approach by considering how these two processes interact within narratives, and how the resulting interplay shapes how the homeless navigate the social spaces of homelessness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)Same topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207