A rapid review of practices to support people experiencing homelessness during COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose People experiencing homelessness are uniquely vulnerable to the impacts of a pandemic, such as COVID-19. Therefore, governments across Canada have been implementing a patchwork of responses to address the needs of those who are homeless at this time. The purpose of this study is to both compile and assess the varying responses by exploring the breadth of actions presented in print and social media. Design/methodology/approach Rapid review methodology is a means of compiling a breadth of information to compare and contrast policy implementations. Herein, the authors provide a comprehensive rapid review of responses to homelessness considered through a health equity lens. Findings Based on policy implementations to date, the authors offer eight recommendations of potentially promising practices among these responses. Situated within a capabilities approach, the authors call upon governments to provide a full breadth of responses to ensure that both health and housing are better protected and obtained during the COVID-19 pandemic. Originality/value This paper presents the first comprehensive review of local government responses to homelessness in the context of COVID-19.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".