MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952122908 · doi:10.1002/jcop.22204

The entrepreneurship of survival among urban adults experiencing homelessness and mental illness

2019· article· en· W2952122908 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Corinne Isaak, Kristin Reynolds, Jitender Sareen, Jino Distasio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Community Psychology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsWinnipeg Institute for Theoretical PhysicsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of WinnipegManitoba Beekeepers' Association
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipMental illnessGerontologyPsychologyMental healthPsychiatryMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Using an entrepreneurship lens, this study examined the narratives of urban adults experiencing homelessness and living with mental illness, to explore strategies used for day-to-day survival. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 14 females, 30 males, and one individual identifying as "other," living in a mid-sized Canadian city. The average age was 39 years. Data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis informed by grounded theory. FINDINGS: Participants described creative and intentional strategies for managing life on the street without permanent shelter, including recognition of opportunities, mobilization of their own or acquired resources, and use of social connections and communication skills, and strategies that demonstrated entrepreneurial processes. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that participants used survival entrepreneurship strategies and processes to navigate daily life while experiencing homelessness. Recognition and validation of the propensity for enterprise and self-sufficiency are central for both individual recovery and ending homelessness within similar populations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.368 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Community PsychologySame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207