“Our stories are different but our situations are the same”: gendered experiences finding housing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to explore the gendered nature of housing insecurity by investigating how gender affects women’s experience moving from transitional to market housing. By describing women’s pathways out of supportive or transitional housing support, the authors show how patriarchal forces in housing policies and practices affect women’s efforts to find secure housing. The authors argue that gender-neutral approaches to housing will fail to meet women’s needs. Design/methodology/approach This study explores the narratives from women accessing support services in Halifax, Canada. The first author conducted deep narrative interviews with women seeking to move from transition to market housing. Findings This research sheds light on the effects of gendered barriers to safe, suitable and affordable housing; how women’s experiences and expectations are shaped by these barriers; and, how housing-based supports must address the uniquely gendered experiences women face as they access market housing. In addition, this research reveals the importance of gender-responsive services that empower women facing a sexist housing market. Originality/value Little research has explored questions related to gender and housing among those seeking to move from transitional to marker housing, and existing research focuses on women’s housing insecurity as it relates to domestic violence. The sample of women included those having housing insecurity for a variety of reasons, including substance use and young motherhood.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".