Borderline Intellectual Functioning and Lifetime Duration of Homelessness among Homeless Adults with Mental Illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on the association between intellectual functioning and lifetime homelessness duration among 172 homeless adults with mental illness in Toronto, Canada.Using a standardized test of intellectual functioning, we created two groups: individuals with borderline or lower intellectual functioning (16%) and individuals with above borderline intellectual functioning (84%).Lifetime homelessness duration was approximately three years longer, or almost twice as long, for individuals with borderline or lower intellectual functioning.Implementing more systematic strategies for identifying and supporting individuals with cognitive impairments may hasten transitions out of homelessness for this population.Brief intellectual functioning assessment tools are available. RésuméCet article porte sur les liens entre le fonctionnement intellectuel et la durée de l'itinérance dans le cas de 172 adultes itinérants ayant une maladie mentale à Toronto, Canada.Nous avons créé deux groupes au moyen d' un test normalisé portant sur le fonctionnement intellectuel.Ces deux groupes sont : les personnes qui présentent un fonctionnement intellectuel limite ou moins élevé (16 %) et les personnes qui présentent un fonctionnement intellectuel plus élevé que l'état limite (84 %).La durée de l'itinérance était approximativement trois ans plus longue, soit près de deux fois plus importante, chez les personnes ayant un fonctionnement intellectuel limite ou moins élevé.La mise en place de stratégies plus systématiques pour repérer et soutenir les personnes qui présentent des déficits cognitifs pourrait accélérer leur sortie de l'itinérance.Il existe des outils pratiques pour évaluer le fonctionnement intellectuel.T
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".