The experience of occupational engagement of chronically homeless persons in a mid-sized urban context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Chronic homelessness is a growing problem in many Western nations. Few studies have explored the occupations of chronically homeless persons, and most of this research has sampled from large metropolitan areas.Purpose: This research sought to explicate the meaning and experience of occupational engagement for homeless persons in a mid-sized urban context.Method: Interpretive phenomenology informed qualitative interviews with 12 chronically homeless participants. Analysis used a modified version of Colaizzi’s (1978 Colaizzi, P. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In R. S. Valle & M. King (Eds.), Existential phenomenological alternatives for psychology (pp. 48–71). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]) methodology.Findings: Themes highlight the experience and meaning of the unique occupations of chronically homeless persons. Altruistic and productivity occupations held particular meaning. Occupational alienation, and the boredom that resulted, severely influenced the psychological well-being of participants. The need to engage in meaningful occupations is powerful, to the extent that it can supersede the perceived importance of housing.Implications: An occupational perspective is a valuable contribution to a broader dialogue on homelessness, and may contribute to a more comprehensive strategy for addressing this problem. Future research should explore boredom and its association with substance use, and ways of enhancing opportunities to include chronically homeless persons in employment and other meaningful occupations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".