MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603276887 · doi:10.11575/prism/30122

Social Impact Bonds and Housing First: A match made for Alberta?

2016· article· en· W2603276887 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Natalie McGladrey

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCommunity Development and Social Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBondBusinessPolitical scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Alberta, homelessness is a persistent social issue that affects over 8,000 people directly. Not only is this emotionally, physically and mentally taxing on the person experiencing homelessness, but it also takes its toll on the public purse. It is estimated that the cost of supporting a chronically homeless person can be as high as $100,000 annually when you take all of the publically provided services that are used. To address this problem, in 2009 Alberta initiated a 10 year plan to end homelessness in the province. This plan uses a Housing First approach, which focuses on providing housing before any other social supports, and has been proven to be a more cost effective way of addressing homelessness than the traditional model. While Housing First may reduce the cost of addressing homelessness, the Alberta Government is facing tightening budgetary restraints and a growing deficit due to the low cost of oil. Social Impact Bonds, a financial tool that can be used to harness private capital to fund public services, could provide the capital necessary to sustain these programs as the province weathers the economic recession.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicCommunity Development and Social ImpactFrench-language works237,207