MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995111560 · doi:10.25071/2291-5796.34

Access to Primary Health Care Services for Youth Experiencing Homelessness: “You shouldn’t need a health card to be healthy.”

2019· article· en· W2995111560 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Claire Pitcher, Elizabeth Saewyc, Annette J. Browne, Paddy Rodney

Bibliographic record

VenueWitness The Canadian Journal of Critical Nursing Discourse · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careQualitative researchNursingPsychologyBureaucracyReport cardPrimary careMedicineSociologyPolitical scienceFamily medicinePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On any given night, thousands of Canadian youth face homelessness in either absolute (living on the street) or relative (couch surfing, staying in emergency shelters) terms. This study explores influences primary health care access among youth experiencing homelessness in a large Canadian urban centre. Using a qualitative research design and convenience sampling, 8 youth participated in in-depth individual interviews and 4 clinicians with expertise in working with youth in primary care settings participated in a facilitated solutions-focused dialogue based on findings from the youth interviews. Data collection occurred from January to November 2016. Main findings included: (1) Youth experiencing homelessness feel powerless when interacting with health care providers, (2) Health care systems exist as rule-based bureaucracies and (3) Homeless youth are in survival mode when it comes to their health. The authors offer recommendations to promote more equitable access to primary health care services for homeless youth.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.394 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWitness The Canadian Journal of Critical Nursing DiscourseSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207