MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984821332 · doi:10.1177/2399654419884581

Mobilizing a fast policy fix: Exploring the translation of 10-year plans to end homelessness in Alberta, Canada

2019· article· en· W2984821332 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Joshua Evans, Jeffrey R. Masuda

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning C Politics and Space · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPeck (Imperial)DynamismCorporate governanceGovernment (linguistics)Neoliberalism (international relations)PoliticsPublic administrationSociologyPolitical scienceRegional sciencePolitical economyLawEconomicsManagementEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The management of homelessness has taken various forms over time. In 2003, the U.S. federal government significantly shifted its approach, ambitiously committing to end homelessness within 10 years by targeting the chronically homeless using the Housing First model. This approach to homelessness has rapidly spread across North America and beyond. This article is concerned with how the mobility of these 10-year plans has been realized. Drawing on Peck and Theodore’s concept of “fast policy,” and borrowing perspectives developed in actor-network theory, the article develops a case study of Alberta, Canada, to chronicle how 10-year plans were translated through a dense network of political alignments, socio-technical expertise, and statistical inscriptions. A close examination of these translations invites us to problematize this socio-technical infrastructure as a powerful mode of adaptive governance closely associated with the dynamism of neoliberalism itself.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0230.011
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Planning C Politics and SpaceSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207