MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3152549446 · doi:10.1080/10511482.2021.1881986

Housing and Homelessness in Indigenous Communities of Canada’s North

2021· article· en· W3152549446 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sandeep Agrawal, Celine Zoe

Bibliographic record

VenueHousing Policy Debate · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsTlicho Community Services AgencyUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousGovernment (linguistics)Economic growthPublic housingColonialismPolitical scienceFirst nationSociocultural evolutionGeographySociologyDevelopment economicsEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A disproportionate number of Indigenous people are homeless in Canada—a situation that is particularly grave in Canada’s North. This study assesses the extent of the current housing and homelessness problem and identifies contributing factors in the Tłıchǫ region of the Northwest Territories (NWT). It concludes that the housing and homelessness issue is severe, with one of the four communities in the region—Behchokǫ̀—being the site with the most persistent and longstanding concerns. It asserts that the territorial government’s housing approach in the Tłıchǫ region fails to align with the best practice model employed for Indigenous housing in remote geographies. The study elaborates on how multiple, interrelated factors, such as ongoing impacts of Canada’s colonial past and welfare system, sociocultural shifts within the Indigenous community, the constraints of a remote geography, and past and current housing policies, contribute to housing insecurity and homelessness. The study also offers some potential solutions and recommendations to deal with this crucial housing issue.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHousing Policy DebateSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207