Occupation-based practices and homelessness: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness have occupational needs that are seldom addressed in the Canadian system of care. The lack of documented evidence on occupational therapy practices in this field hinders the development of the profession. PURPOSE: This article identifies current and potential practices that aim to enable or support the occupations of persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness. METHOD: A scoping review was conducted, including evidence from both occupational therapy and non-occupational therapy sources. FINDINGS: One hundred and seventy-eight papers were selected in the areas of occupational performance skills training, enrichment of occupational repertoire, employment/education, physical rehabilitation services, child/family services, community building, occupational transition from homeless to housed, literacy, and disaster relief. IMPLICATIONS: Occupational therapists can build environments and create opportunities that facilitate occupational engagement of individuals experiencing homelessness. Gaps in knowledge include the evaluation of occupational therapy practices, the Canadian context of family homelessness, and the cultural safety of occupational therapy interventions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".