Understanding the impact of a residential housing programme for people living with HIV/AIDS: a realist evaluation protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Housing instability and homelessness are significant barriers to medical treatment for people living with HIV/AIDS. For these individuals, lack of stable housing and stigma is associated with insufficient access to care, poor adherence to medication and higher cost burdens to the healthcare system. This protocol reports on the efforts to evaluate Sanctum V.1.0, a hospice and transitional care home for adults with HIV/AIDS in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. The current project was developed out of a need to identify how Sanctum V.1.0 produces varying programme outcomes to assist in endeavours to replicate the programme in other geographic locations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A realist evaluation will be conducted to explore how and why Sanctum V.1.0 is successful or unsuccessful, in which circumstances and for whom. Rather than explore the degree to which a programme is effective, realist evaluations seek to uncover mechanisms that explain processual links between programme inputs and outcomes. The completed first phase of the project involved the development of an initial realist programme theory. Phases 2 and 3 will consist of methods to test, refine and validate the initial theory using various data sources. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the institutional review board at the University of Saskatchewan on 2 July 2020. Results will be disseminated according to stakeholders' desires.
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 | 0.119 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.007 |
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".