Developing an Accessibility Index to Inform Housing First Policy: A Critical Evaluation of Social Services in Edmonton
Bibliographic record
Abstract

 
 
 Unique among housing initiatives, Housing First operates on the principle that every person has the right to a safe and secure home regardless of housing readiness. The Housing First Support Program, operated by Homeward Trust Edmonton, is currently providing over 2,500 Edmontonians with secure housing and the supports needed in the transition from homelessness into housing. The program is intended to last 12 months, gradually reducing a client’s support untilthey are self-sufficient; however, this may be difficult for some clients, especially if they experience poor accessibility to the services and amenities they require to achieve housing stability. In particular, youth experiencing homelessness require supports that are tailored to their needs and that aid in the transition from adolescence to adulthood. As youth make up 17% (n=312) of Housing First clients, it is imperative that the services, centres, and supports necessary to breaking the cycle of homelessness are accessible to them at this critical stage in development. With this project, we mapped the locations of current Housing First clients aged 12-24 in relation to the services and amenities they may require to achieve housing stability. After identifying these services and amenities, we used a gravity model to create an Accessibility Index. This Accessibility Index highlights the service accessibility of current Housing First clients, and can be used in the future to identify areas of need and opportunities for increasing accessibility.
 
 
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".