Housing First in Canada: Diversity of approaches and redefinition of public policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian project At Home/Chez soi was carried out in a remarkably wide area covering five cities with several hundred people in situations of homelessness. This project gave rise to many strong and contrasted reactions from the actors involved, either in terms of support for the new model or resistance and denunciation of the fact that existing public policy actions were not taken into account. On the basis of criticism of the efficiency of earlier experiments, advocates of Housing First developed a strategy to transform public policy. Their approach was based a logic of conviction that takes into account evidence from research, loyalty to the model, and coherence of discourse promoting the values inherent in this model. The way in which this model was appropriated is diversified. The paradigm of loyalty to the model is enriched by various strategies of interpretation and reformulation that enable actors to transform it to adapt it to the local context.
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 | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".