Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a comprehensive review of scholarly literature on the topic of Aboriginal Homelessness in Canada. It answers the following four broad inquiry areas through a review and analysis of current (1988-2012), and primarily academic, literature: \n \n Inquiry Area #1 - Key Concepts: How are the concepts of ‘homelessness’ and ‘home’ defined, particularly for the Aboriginal population? Is there a unique meaning of homelessness for Aboriginal Peoples? \n Inquiry Area #2 - Causes: Why are Aboriginal populations (particularly youth, gender minorities, and urban groups) at a disproportionate risk of becoming homeless or over- represented in the Canadian homeless population? \n Inquiry Area #3 - Experiences: How do Aboriginal Peoples experience homelessness? What is the range of diversity in their lived experiences? \n Inquiry Area #4 - Action: What has been proposed in the areas of homelessness prevention and solutions for Aboriginal Peoples? What is working? What are some new ways authors are conceptualizing these issues? \n \nThis literature review also endeavours to highlight gaps and weaknesses that currently exist in the academic literature and suggests future research avenues on this topic. \n \nThis review is organized around broad themes that emerged throughout the literature which are reflected in the section headings. There is, however, a significant amount of overlap between sections because many subjects and personal experiences are interrelated and complex. \n \nThis literature review has several target audiences. Since it provides an analysis of scholarly material an academic audience is a primary target. This review may also be of value to policy makers, service providers, politicians and community stakeholders because of its emphasis on solutions and pathways forward. Since it is written in plain language, it is also designed to be accessible to the general population. It is the hope of the reviewer that this document is disseminated as widely as possible, as to draw attention to the national Aboriginal homelessness crisis and hopefully inspire action.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.057 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".