Finding home: Community integration experiences of formerly homeless women with problematic substance use in Housing First
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study explored community integration among women participating in a Housing First program. Physical, social, and psychological dimensions of community integration were examined. METHODS: This study used neighborhood walk-along and photo-elicitation interviews to explore 16 formerly homeless women's experiences of community integration. RESULTS: Participants described limited community integration. Health, poverty, service inaccessibility, and safety concerns shaped how they took part in activities in their neighborhoods. Participants primarily socialized with people in their buildings, though some preferred to keep to themselves. There was minimal sense of neighborhood belonging, with participants not interested in belonging to a community and being judged by others. CONCLUSION: Housing First promoted housing stability but did not contribute to community integration. Participants did not express a strong desire to integrate in their communities. Future research should consider the extent to which community integration remains a priority for marginalized populations, such as formerly homeless women.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it