MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033949265 · doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(20)30120-1

Effective interventions for homeless populations: the evidence remains unclear

2020· article· en· W3033949265 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sophie Wickham

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Public Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsPsychological interventionMEDLINEMedicineGerontologyPsychologyPsychiatryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A wealth of evidence demonstrates the damaging long-term effects of homelessness on health. Homeless individuals are at higher risk of infections, traumatic injuries, and violence, and are more likely to have multimorbidities, disabilities, and to die young.1 The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimate that at present, 1·9 million people across OECD countries are homeless.2 In the USA, on a single night in January, 2019, an estimated 567 715 people were experiencing homelessness, representing an increase of 3% from 2018.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.114
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.114
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.003

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 head0.601
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.043 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Public HealthSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207