MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558780509

Double Jeopardy: Old Age and Nowhere Secure to Lay Your Head

2008· article· en· W2558780509 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brenton Holmes

Bibliographic record

VenueParity · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusDemographicsGerontologyPopulationPopulation ageingIntervention (counseling)Quarter (Canadian coin)Older peopleMainstreamDouble jeopardyMedicineDemographyPsychologyGeographyPsychiatrySociologyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On Census night in 2001 around 14,000 older Australians aged 55 years and over experienced homelessness. This represents 14 per cent of the homeless population. When the next Census figures are released, this figure will almost certainly have risen. War veterans make up approximately 10 per cent of this group of older, homeless Australians. Some are drug and alcohol dependent and suffer from mental illness. It is possible that older people experiencing homelessness are underrepresented in statistics because they live outside the conventional system of care, including the homeless service system. Often these people approach mainstream services but they are not recorded as being homeless. Considering the demographics of Australia's ageing population, the most preventative and early intervention strategies, such as improvements in program coordination, should ensure that older people in need of housing and support services are identified and not left out.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueParitySame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207