MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998429246 · doi:10.1080/02673037.2019.1707782

Does Housing First policy seek to fulfil the right to housing? The case of Alberta, Canada

2020· article· en· W2998429246 on OpenAlexaffabout
Damian Collins, Madeleine Dion Stout

Bibliographic record

VenueHousing Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrivilege (computing)PremiseNormativeFair Housing ActHuman rightsRight to the cityFoundation (evidence)Political scienceHousing discriminationAffordable housingPublic administrationLaw and economicsLawSociologyEconomic growthEconomicsCivil rightsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Housing First (HF) operates on the premise that permanent housing is the first need of people experiencing chronic homelessness. It understands housing as a resource to which everyone is entitled, not a privilege that must be earned. In these respects, HF is consistent with housing as a human right. However, little is known about if or how HF policy seeks to fulfil this right. To address this gap, we conducted keyword and content analyses of HF policy in Alberta, Canada. Direct references to the right to housing were few in number and lacking in detail and justification. Terms related to rights were also seldom referenced, although the presence and absence of ‘conditions’ within HF were discussed. Plans to end homelessness focused on affordability, but failed to consider other necessary components of the right to housing. Greater engagement with international human rights law would provide HF policy with a normative foundation for addressing homelessness as a severe breach of the right to housing.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0240.012
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHousing StudiesSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207