Ending Homelessness in Canada: Reflections from Researchers in the Field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ten-year plans to end homelessness have become common in communities across Canada, yet homelessness persists. This study brings together experts in the field of homelessness to gain insight into whether homelessness can be ended and what steps need to be taken to accomplish this. Twenty-six Canadian homelessness researchers participated in video-recorded structured interviews in the summer of 2021. They were asked whether, and how, homelessness could be ended in Canada. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed for recurring themes. There was widespread agreement across the participants that homelessness could be ended in Canada by focusing on four distinct yet related areas. First, all levels of government must be held accountable for policy decisions they make, and they must learn from other countries, such as Finland, where social welfare policies are more robustly integrated. Second, Canada must continue to implement policies and laws that prioritize housing as a human right rather than a commodity. Third, there is a need for individualized choice-based supports, following the principles of Housing First, which emphasize community integration. Finally, preventive measures must be prioritized with a focus on improved systems alignment and discharge planning between institutions. This paper does not offer a blueprint for change, recognizing the extent of public and social policies, tax restructuring, and ideological shifts that will need to occur. Rather, it provides a thoughtful reflection from researchers on where we as a nation should focus our attention if we want to end homelessness in Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".