Investing in Saving Lives: Designing Second-Stage Women’s Shelters on First Nation Reserves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most Indigenous women in Canada (61%) experience intimate partner violence (IPV), which is significantly worse than the high rate of 44 percent for other women in Canada. Despite the great risk for IPV, only three unfunded second-stage shelters for more than 600 First Nation reserves exist in Canada to provide First Nation women and their children a safe home. Second-stage housing offers IPV survivors transitional homes for an extended period that provide safety and renewal after their initial emergency shelter stays. This article documents the need for safe, nurturing, and culturally appropriate second-stage shelters for Indigenous women and their families to heal and rebuild. The authors provide two second-stage prototype designs based on domestic environmental analysis and concepts of houselessness, home, and co-housing. We discuss how these designs are one step in an action plan to protect Indigenous women and stop the genocide of Indigenous Peoples by supporting cultural, economic, health, and social development. The literature review and design concepts form an agenda to have design goals for housing IPV survivors that answers the “Calls to Justice for Murdered and Missing Women” and expands this needed service to every reserve.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".