Rural Homelessness in Western Canada: Lessons Learned from Diverse Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Until recently, there was little acknowledgement that homelessness existed in rural areas in Canada. Limited research and scarce data are available to understand the scope and dynamics of rural homelessness in Canada. As suggested in our previous work, there is a need for rural homelessness research to examine themes from a provincial perspective. The aim of this research was to contribute to expanding the knowledge base on the nature of rural homelessness at a provincial level in the Canadian province of Alberta. In order to understand the dynamics of homelessness in rural Alberta, we conducted interviews with service providers and other key stakeholders across Alberta. We examined homelessness dynamics and responses to rural homelessness in 20 rural communities across the province. Across all of the communities in the study, homelessness was reported however, the magnitude of the issue and its dynamics were distinct depending on the local contexts. We also identified several themes which serve as descriptors of rural homelessness issues. We note a number of recommendations emerging from this data which are aimed at building on the experiences, capacities, and strengths of rural communities.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".