MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321444978 · doi:10.5206/ijoh.2022.2.14722

Pathways Into Couchsurfing From Child Safety Involvement

2023· article· en· W4321444978 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Katie Hail-Jares, Rhianon Vichta-Ohlsen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal on Homelessness · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Multidisciplinary approachService (business)PsychologyWelfareDevelopmental psychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceBusinessGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Couchsurfing, or temporarily staying with friends, extended family, acquaintances, or strangers, is a growing form of homelessness within Australia, and particularly concentrated among youth. System involvement with child welfare and its link to youth homelessness has previously been well-established, but not within the context of couchsurfing. In interviews with 19 young people with both couchsurfing and a history of system-involvement, we identify and describe six different pathways into couchsurfing. These pathways extended from the beginning to the end of their child safety involvement, and demonstrate how fear of reprisal for reporting, fear of out-of-home-care, and lack of transition planning pushed-or-pulled young people into couchsurfing. These findings indicate the link between couchsurfing and child safety involvement began very early in the investigative process, suggesting multidisciplinary service teams that include housing support should be involved in initial contact. We also echo the recommendations of other researchers to prioritise Housing First programming and risk assessment for evaluating young people’s living spaces.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.013
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal on HomelessnessSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207