Uncovering Promising Practices for Supporting Older People Experiencing Homelessness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Montréal, Calgary, and Vancouver have seen a dramatic increase in homelessness among adults aged 50+. In order to identify ‘promising practices’ that promote aging-in-the-right-place for older people experiencing homelessness (OPEH) in Montréal, Calgary, and Vancouver, we conducted an environmental scan and three World Café workshops with 99 service providers and OPEH. We identified 53 promising practices managed or operated by 42 providers which we categorized across a shelter/housing continuum: 1) Emergency/transitional/temporary shelter/housing; 2) Independent housing with offsite supports; 3) Supported independent housing with onsite, non-medical supports; 4) Permanent supportive housing with onsite medical support and/or specialized services; 5) Long-term care; and 6) Palliative care/hospice. Study findings provide a template for existing solutions to the diverse shelter/housing needs of OPEH and insight into the gaps in shelter/housing and services that would support OPEH to age-in-the-right place. Policy and practice implications for scaling promising practices will be discussed. Part of a symposium sponsored by the Environmental Gerontology Interest Group.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".