Priorities for Supportive Housing Services: Perspectives of People With Mental Illness in Northeastern Ontario
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Accessible, appropriate, and affordable housing is recognized as essential for the well-being of all Canadians. Securing and maintaining housing tenure for individuals living with chronic health and social challenges can be compromised without appropriate services. There has been limited research into the priorities to enhance supportive housing services from the perspective of individuals living with mental illness in smaller urban and rural communities. Purpose The purpose was to describe the priorities for supportive housing from the viewpoints of tenants recovering from mental illness in northeastern Ontario. Methods This descriptive study used Q methodology to engage 52 adults regarding their impressions about enhancing supportive housing services. Participants ranked 39 housing and support priority statements on a nine-point Likert-type scale. Results Four discrete viewpoints about priorities for supportive housing were building a home, letting others in, moving outside the walls, and accessing personalized services. Common across these viewpoints was the need to increase financial assistance offered through existing programs. Conclusions Fostering individual pathways to recovery involves mitigating health and social disparities, relative to supportive housing, one size does not fit all. Service providers and decision makers are compelled to situate each individual within an evidence-informed supportive housing system for citizenship.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it