MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392993707 · doi:10.1080/10852352.2024.2330271

“I want purpose in my life”: A qualitative exploration of how homeless youth envision their futures

2024· article· en· W4392993707 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Minda Wood, Stéphanie Manoni-Millar, Athourina David, Cora MacDonald, Veronique Rochon, John Sylvestre, Stephen Gaetz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersEmployment and Social Development Canada
KeywordsVisionIntervention (counseling)Futures contractPsychologyAutonomyHousing FirstPositive Youth DevelopmentQualitative researchDevelopmental psychologyMental healthSociologyPolitical sciencePsychotherapistMental illnessPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preparing for the future is a major developmental task during adolescence and early adulthood. However, youth experiencing homelessness face additional challenges relating to economic instability, housing insecurity, and a lack of social support. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 38 youth, from Ottawa and Toronto, who were experiencing homelessness and participating in a randomized controlled trial of Housing First for Youth (HF4Y). This qualitative study explores youths' visions for the future, including their goals, aspirations, plans, and barriers to achieving them. Overall, findings demonstrated that youth had positive visions of the future and strove to reach developmentally appropriate goals and responsibilities. Compared to youth receiving HF4Y, the future expectations of those receiving treatment as usual (TAU) were characterized by uncertainty and lacked clear direction. Additionally, they emphasized self-reliance and autonomy, while HF4Y prioritized forming relationships and reconnection. Findings highlight the importance of stable housing intervention, and social, community, and financial support in planning for the future and transitioning out of homelessness. Implications for intervention, directions for future research, and limitations are provided.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.252
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Prevention & Intervention in the CommunitySame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207