Being homeless at the “End” of homelessness navigating the symbolic and social boundaries of housing first
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Housing First (HF) has emerged as the dominant paradigm in homelessness policy and has been praised for bringing an "end" to the homelessness crisis. Others claim, however, that HF facilitates further sociospatial exclusion of people experiencing homelessness (PEH). To advance this debate and understand HF within its larger sociological context, this article examines how HF policies translate to the lived experiences of those who remain in shelters and on the streets. Through interviews with 22 PEH, we demonstrate how HF confronts PEH with a set of strategic dilemmas that we frame using the concept of "boundary-work." First, PEH must negotiate the symbolic boundaries that HF establishes between "worthy" and "unworthy" for the purposes of distributing housing. Second, once housed, PEH face challenges in navigating the social boundaries that separate the private space of the dwelling, the transitional spaces of homelessness (e.g., streets, shelters), and the increasingly gentrified public spaces of the city. We end by discussing the implications of these findings for evaluating HF programs and demonstrating the value of a boundary-work perspective on homelessness.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".