Predicting Chronic Homelessness: The Importance of Comparing Algorithms using Client Histories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates how to best compare algorithms for predicting chronic homelessness for the purpose of identifying good candidates for housing programs. Predictive methods can rapidly refer potentially chronic shelter users to housing but also sometimes incorrectly identify individuals who will not become chronic (false positives). We use shelter access histories to demonstrate that these false positives are often still good candidates for housing. Using this approach, we compare a simple threshold method for predicting chronic homelessness to the more complex logistic regression and neural network algorithms. While traditional binary classification performance metrics show that the machine learning algorithms perform better than the threshold technique, an examination of the shelter access histories of the cohorts identified by the three algorithms show that they select groups with very similar characteristics. This has important implications for resource constrained not-for-profit organizations since the threshold technique can be implemented using much simpler information technology infrastructure than the machine learning algorithms.
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 | 0.091 | 0.241 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".