Experiences of Community Integration for Vulnerably Housed Formerly Homeless Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community integration is based on the premise that people with disabilities should have opportunities equal to their non-disabled counterparts (Wong & Solomon, 2002). The purpose of this research was to investigate predictors of community integration and the experiences of community integration for vulnerably housed (i.e., housing that falls below standard levels of adequacy, affordability, and suitability (Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2008)) women with a history of homelessness. A quantitative study design used data from women participants in the Health and Housing in Transition (HHiT) study in Ottawa, Toronto, and Vancouver at two-time points (i.e., follow-up 2 (N = 217) and follow-up 3 (N = 208)). Furthermore, a longitudinal qualitative study (i.e., baseline (N = 16) and 6-month follow-up (N = 13)) was also conducted with female participants from the Supportive Housing for People with Problematic Substance Use (SHARPE) evaluation study in Ottawa. Participants were interviewed using mapping techniques, neighbourhood walk-along, and semi-structured photo- elicitation methods. Overall, the findings of the studies show that both individual and environmental factors play an important role in community integration. Together, these studies suggest that for formerly homeless women, factors that have the greatest association with community integration are feeling healthy, having social support, partaking in organized activities, receiving greater income support, feeling protected from victimization, and living in high quality apartments and neighbourhoods close to amenities. Implications of these findings for future research and for improving neighbourhood integration of tenants were also discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".