MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392902250 · doi:10.32920/25417450

Alternative Supportive Transitional Housing: The Introduction of Supportive-Coliving in Empowering Single Homeless Youth Mothers in Toronto

2024· preprint· en· W4392902250 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jayvis King Wo Wan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupportive housingGeneral partnershipPopulationIntervention (counseling)Affordable housingPublic housingIndependence (probability theory)PsychologyEconomic growthPolitical scienceSociologyBusinessPublic relationsMedicineEnvironmental healthEconomicsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pandemic and the ever-climbing housing price have exacerbated Toronto's homeless problem. Notably, youth (age 16-24) make up a fast-growing population (11%) of homeless people in Toronto. A hidden population conceals beneath the notoriety of Toronto's youth homelessness is women under age 25, as they represent almost one-half of homeless youth in Canada. Their need for food and shelter often puts them at risk of involvement in sex trades as means of support for basic needs. Furthermore, they carry their own set of challenges for homeless people, but they are also the hardest to reach for support as many fear that institutional intervention will snap their children away from them. Therefore, to make up for the lack of the City's Housing First strategy and the lengthy social housing waitlist, there is a need for supportive, affordable, secure and safe housing that integrates services to bring homeless pregnant women, mothers and children closer to support and strengthen their independence of living in the future. This study introduces a new housing model named Supportive-Coliving to bond and empower homeless single young mothers. It is a type of supportive transitional housing that integrates Co-living characteristics. The study provides a preliminary theoretical grounding for this novel housing concept by investigating its programming, interior design, financial structure, and the mechanism to transition out residents while successfully adhering to the establishing principles. Moreover, the study will identify partnership and funding opportunities and the barriers that hinder Supportive-Coliving development.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHomelessness and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→