MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120666667 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0245088

Met and unmet needs of homeless individuals at different stages of housing reintegration: A mixed-method investigation

2021· article· en· W3120666667 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marie‐Josée Fleury, Guy Grenier, Judith Sabetti, Karine Bertrand, Michèle Clément, Serge Brochu

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalUniversité de SherbrookeMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaslow's hierarchy of needsPsychological interventionSpecial needsSupportive housingBasic needsNeeds assessmentGerontologyStigma (botany)Social needsPublic housingSocial supportMedicinePsychologyEnvironmental healthHealth careNursingPsychiatryPovertySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to identify and compare major areas of met and unmet needs reported by 455 homeless or recently housed individuals recruited from emergency shelters, temporary housing, and permanent housing in Quebec (Canada). Mixed methods, guided by the Maslow framework, were used. Basic needs were the strongest needs category identified, followed by health and social services (an emergent category), and safety; very few participants expressed needs in the higher-order categories of love and belonging, self-esteem, and self-actualization. The only significant differences between the three housing groups occurred in basic needs met, which favored permanent housing residents. Safety was the only category where individuals reported more unmet than met needs. The study results suggested that increased overall access to and continuity of care with family physicians, MD or SUD clinicians and community organizations for social integration should be provided to help better these individuals. Case management, stigma prevention, supported employment programs, peer support and day centers should particularly be more widely implemented as interventions that may promote a higher incidence of met needs in specific needs categories.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations39
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207