“I want purpose in my life”: A qualitative exploration of how homeless youth envision their futures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".