MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159116532 · doi:10.1080/02673037.2021.1912713

Understanding the principle of consumer choice in delivering housing first

2021· article· en· W3159116532 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHousing Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsFanshawe CollegeThe King's UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsumer choiceConsumer behaviourMarketingBusinessConsumer demandPublic economicsEconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on an analysis of a Housing First program this study explores the principle of ‘consumer choice’. Housing First is a model aimed at rapidly ending experiences of housing loss. Based on interviews with 4 program staff and 7 Housing First recipients, this analysis brought to light complexities in ‘consumer choice’ . The provision of consumer choice can be constrained when housing markets are tight, or when consumers seek congregate living when scattered-site is the focus. Choice can also be a challenge if consumers request housing readiness prior to re-housing. While the principle of choice has allowed services to move away from a staircase model, also considered as a “one size fits all” approach, we need to critically assess whether our current system supports self-determination around unique needs and preferences. This paper provides a thorough discussion on the challenges associated with enacting the principles of Housing First, and how policy environments can either impede or support consumer choice.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.331
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.139 · 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