MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3116020861 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igaa057.2488

Conceptualizing the Shelter and Housing Needs and Solutions of Older People Experiencing Homelessness

2020· article· en· W3116020861 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah L. Canham, Joe Humphries

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialThematic analysisSupportive housingGerontologySocial needsIntervention (counseling)Mental healthOlder peopleHousing FirstPsychologySociologyEconomic growthMedicineQualitative researchMental illnessPsychiatryHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Newly and chronically homeless older adults have unique pathways into homelessness and distinct physical, mental, and social needs. Using a five-step process, we conducted a scoping review of primary research to investigate the needs and solutions for sheltering/housing older people experiencing homelessness (OPEH). Thematic analysis of data from 19 sources revealed 1) shelter/housing needs and challenges of newly vs. chronically homeless older adults; 2) existing shelter/housing solutions addressing the needs of OPEH, including Housing First, permanent supportive housing, and multiservice homelessness intervention programs; and 3) outcomes of rehousing OPEH. Following, we developed a conceptual model which outlines how unique health and psychosocial needs of newly and chronically homeless older adults can be met through appropriately-designed shelter/housing solutions with individualized levels of senior-specific support. Future shelter/housing initiatives and strategies should use a rights-based approach and prioritize matching diverse OPEH needs to appropriate shelter/housing options that will support their ability to age-in-the-right-place. 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 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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in Aging→Same topicHomelessness and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→