Identifying Shelter and Housing Models for Older People Experiencing Homelessness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited research has identified the types of shelter/housing and supports for the growing population of older people experiencing homelessness (OPEH) and the extent to which existing models align with their needs. To redress this gap, we conducted an environmental scan and three World Café workshops to identify and characterize shelter/housing models for OPEH in Montreal, Calgary, and Vancouver (Canada). Fifty-two models were identified and categorized into six shelter/housing types based on the program length of stay and level of health and social supports provided onsite: (1) Emergency, transitional, or temporary shelter/housing with supports; (2) Independent housing with offsite community-based supports; (3) Supported independent housing with onsite, non-medical supports; (4) Permanent supportive housing with onsite medical support and/or specialized services; (5) Long-term care for individuals with complex health needs and; (6) Palliative care/hospice, offering end-of-life services. Models that met the unique needs of OPEH had coordinated supports, social and recreational programming, assistance with daily tasks, and had a person-centered, harm-reduction approach to care. This typology of shelter/housing models offers a basis from which local and regional governments can audit their existing shelter/housing options and determine where there may be gaps in supporting OPEH.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".