Costing in context: strategic choices in economic analyses of homelessness responses in the USA, Canada and the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building on the review undertaken by Berry et al. (2003) for the National Homelessness Strategy, this working paper explores some of the strategic choices faced in the conduct and commission of costing work undertaken in relation to responses to homelessness in the USA, Canada and the UK. We consider the economic arguments and research drawn upon by governments and advocacy groups to propose or justify shifts in focus from crisis to more preventive strategies, and from temporary to more permanent 'solutions' to homelessness. The paper discusses the policy and advocacy environment in which economic arguments for reform have been shaped and indicates the social and research infrastructure drawn on by researchers in the three countries. Studies that have been prominent in recent policy debate at the national level have been singled out for more detailed discussion in the attached Appendix. Our investigation provides a basis for identifying the strategic purposes of costing work in homelessness policy debate as well as drawing attention to the infrastructure of research and advocacy required to drive it in productive directions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".