MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Child protection services and youth experiencing homelessness: Findings of the 2019 national youth homelessness survey in Canada

2023· article· en· W4383645895 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ahmad Bonakdar, Stephen Gaetz, Emmanuel Banchani, Kaitlin Schwan, Sean A. Kidd, Bill O’Grady

Bibliographic record

VenueChildren and Youth Services Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisengagement theoryMental healthPopulationPsychologyPsychiatryMedicineGerontologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Youth leaving or being discharged from child protection services (CPS) are a particularly vulnerable population in Canada that could be at an increased risk of homelessness, which has many adverse consequences including declining physical and mental health, school disengagement, involvement with the justice system, and substance use disorders. In this paper, we examine the extent to which youth accessing homelessness services with a history of involvement with CPS differ from their peers who have not interacted with CPS using the 2019 Without a Home: The National Youth Homelessness Survey—which is by far the largest study ever administered in Canada on youth homelessness (n=1375). This examination includes a diverse range of life circumstances and outcomes, including quality of life, relationships with friends and family, criminal records, education, and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). Furthermore, controlling for demographic characteristics, we present risk factors most likely to be correlated with youth homelessness including, ACEs and the CPS history, and conclude by discussing policy implications and proposing future research avenues.

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)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.015
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueChildren and Youth Services ReviewSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207