MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2809036931 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v3i2.491

Using administrative data from a national shared services database to target the delivery of homeless services in the Dublin Region

2018· article· en· W2809036931 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bernie O'Donoghue Hynes, Richard Waldron, Declan Redmond, Pathie Maphosa

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutreachTypologyService (business)Cluster (spacecraft)PopulationGeographyBusinessDatabaseMedicineComputer sciencePolitical scienceEnvironmental healthMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundPASS is a national shared services database that captures live information on service user interactions with all state funded NGO and local authority homeless services. In the Dublin region, which accommodates in excess of 70% of the nationalhomeless population, this data was mined and cleansed in order to carry out a k-mean cluster analysis. ObjectiveThe objective was to determine the rate of movement through homeless services and the consumption of resources of different clusters cohorts and to compare these findings with other regions internationally. MethodsFollowing extensive data preparation, the Kuhn and Culhane (1998) k-mean cluster analysis was applied in 2017 to five years of PASS data (2012-2016) and results categorised to align to their typology of homelessness. FindingsResults for Dublin showed patterns similar to those reported in the US, Canada and Denmark, with approximately 80% of services users transitioning quickly through services. These transitional service users accounted for just over one third of total bed-nights while the remaining 20% of episodic and long-term service users accounted for almost two thirds of the bed-nights over the five years. Uniquely, the analysis also considered the patterns of engagement of people sleeping rough and results revealed similar but more extreme patterns with 86% of those rough sleeping accounting for only 28% of outreach contacts with a small number adults accounting for over 70% of all street contacts. ConclusionThe results from the analysis of administrative data were used to inform operations so appropriate ‘Housing First’ responses were developed for those episodically or chronically experiencing homelessness and engaged in sleeping rough.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.442
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.122 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data Science→Same topicHomelessness and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→