Homeless university students: Experiences with foyer-type service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some young people who have been homeless during their secondary schooling manage to obtain a university place. These young people, and others who become homeless during their university courses, have the opportunity to build a sustainable exit from homelessness through education and support. Very little is known about how many young Australians are in this situation, or what can be done to assist them to complete their degrees. This article reports on research that aimed to document the experiences of 11 university students who had experienced homelessness. The research focussed on the difficulties that these young people faced, and the types of environments and service responses that can make a difference for them. The students were part of a larger study of a foyer-type service. The research found that these young people took longer than the standard duration to complete their degrees. Their study was facilitated by provision of stable, safe accommodation and support when they were acutely homeless, relief from other pressures such as family conflict, protection while maturing, time for overseas born including refugee young people to develop language, skills, and resources, support to heal from past damaging experiences and improve their health, assistance to gain entry to preferred university courses, and pathways into stable housing for the duration of their study.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".