“Until You Hit Rock Bottom There’s No Support”: Contradictory Sources and Systems of Support for Mothers Experiencing Homelessness in Southwestern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nurses are vital community advocates and uniquely situated to support mothers experiencing homelessness. The purpose of this study was to examine the multidimensional nature of social exclusion in the lives of mothers experiencing homelessness in Southwestern Ontario. This article reports findings from one segment of a larger study that critically examined the sociopolitical context, health needs, exclusionary and inclusionary forces, and strategies of resistance demonstrated by mothers experiencing homelessness. Central to the women’s experiences of mothering while homeless were their interactions with “the system.” The contradictory nature of these systems was categorized into four subthemes: (1) “Until you hit rock bottom there’s no support,” (2) “It’s just not enough”: Insufficient support, (3) “Help comes with a price”: Support with surveillance, and (4) “Every shelter is so different”: Organizational philosophies impacting support. The contradictory nature of the system created an illusion of support, but in mothers’ lived realities, it perpetuated experiences of exclusion in spaces ironically designed to enhance inclusion. Implications for nursing practice include action the macro-, meso-, and microlevels. Nurses can advocate for Housing-First initiatives and evidence-informed approaches to poverty reduction while recognizing the system-level barriers to health and providing respective, compassionate care.
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 | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".