Assessment of Critical Health and Safety Risks in Homes where Hoarding is Prevalent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hoarding behaviour sometimes requires intervention from community agencies to reduce risks to residents and the nearby community. Human services professionals from a wide range of disciplines are called upon to address hoarding concerns, often in collaboration with each other. No guidelines currently exist to guide staff from those community agencies in a shared understanding of common health and safety risks that occur with severe hoarding behaviour. Using a modified Delphi method, we aimed to generate consensus among a panel of 34 service-provider experts from a range of disciplines on essential risks in the home that would require intervention for health or safety reasons. This process identified 31 environmental risk factors that experts agreed are critical to assess in cases of hoarding. Panelist comments outlined the debates that commonly occur in the field, the complexity of hoarding, and the difficulty with conceptualizing risks in the home. The multi-disciplinary consensus achieved on these risks will facilitate better collaboration between agencies by providing a minimum standard of what to evaluate in hoarded homes to ensure health and safety standards are being met. This can improve communication between agencies, specify the core hazards that should be incorporated into training for professionals who work with hoarding, and facilitate more standardized assessment of health and safety risks in hoarded homes.
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 | 0.026 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".