Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is known about homelessness in Canada? In this article, we present the results of a systematic literature review of peer-reviewed research produced on homelessness in Canada, in English and French, since 2000. We seek to map this literature in an effort at understanding how homelessness has been studied by researchers and to identify potential gaps in this impressive body of literature. The literature review included a two-stage process. First, we analyzed almost 1000 articles specifically regarding homelessness according to title, journal, and case. Then, we conducted a qualitative abstract analysis of 251 papers written by the ten most prolific scholars of homelessness research, analyzing the research question, methods, and recommendations. We find that the majority of research on homelessness in Canada has been in large cities (Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal). Research is often conducted in comparative perspective, though there have been fewer international comparisons, and often from a public health or medical science perspective. We argue that social scientists have a lot to contribute to this field of study by analyzing the structural and political causes of homelessness, and that researchers should study small, mid-sized, northern, and rural communities in their studies as well as big cities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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".