Policy-related Homelessness Discourses in Canada: Implications for Nursing Research, Practice, and Advocacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite Canada’s commitment to several international human rights instruments recognizing the right to housing, homelessness remains widespread nationwide. Informed by critical political economy theory and critical discourse studies, we examined relevant literature focusing on homelessness policy-related documents in the Canadian context. The findings demonstrate interrelated homelessness policy discourses: 1) emergency shelters, 2) housing first, 3) social determinants of health, 4) human rights, and 5) political economy approach. We conclude that a critical political economy approach offers the most helpful way of understanding and responding to the homelessness crisis in Canada. Homelessness is a socioeconomic and political problem requiring nurses and health professionals to take sociopolitical actions. As nurses and health justice advocates, we stand in solidarity with labour movements to protect public health. This study can be adopted in local, national, and global settings.
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 | 0.022 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.056 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".