Intersecting transitions among 2S/LGBTQ+ youth experiencing homelessness: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual and gender minority (2S/LGBTQ+) youth under 30 years of age are inequitably impacted by homelessness. Root drivers of homelessness among 2S/LGBTQ+ youth and the service-related needs of this group are multifaceted and complex. A synthesis of research can inform responsive action to support 2S/LGBTQ+ youth experiencing and at risk for homelessness with the goal of promoting better health and material living conditions. To summarize the literature addressing health and social transitions among homeless 2S/LGBTQ+ youth. This scoping review study utilized PRISMA-ScR guidelines to search seven bibliographic databases for peer-reviewed, English-language empirical works published between 2000-2022. The sampling frame centered homeless 2S/LGBTQ+ youth with attention to life-course transitions. Retrieved citations were de-duplicated and assessed for inclusion through title/abstract and full-text screening completed independently by two reviewers. Data were charted and synthesized with a descriptive summary and qualitative content analysis. This scoping review yielded a total of 27 articles. Most articles reported on qualitative studies (n=21) and originated from the United States (n=18) and Canada (n=6). Findings from the qualitative content analysis reflect intersecting health and social transitions related to: (i) leaving home, (ii) navigating street life, and (iii) orienting toward a future. The included studies detail the complex array of transitions 2S/LGBTQ+ youth navigate in relation to homelessness, often with limited supports and in structural contexts involving socioeconomic precarity. Findings underscore that multipronged and context-informed responses are required to meaningfully support 2S/LGBTQ+ youth experiencing and at risk for homelessness. Policy and practice interventions that are youth-centered, strengths-based, and grounded in a socioecological perspective may be optimally positioned to address the intersecting forms of structural vulnerability shaping transitions into and through homelessness for 2S/LGBTQ+ youth.
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 | 0.013 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".