Making Homes in Un-Homelike Places among Young People in Vancouver: Implications for Homelessness Prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the experiences of young people navigating an evolving system of housing and homelessness services in Vancouver, Canada. Despite recent shifts toward Housing First policies and calls for prevention-oriented initiatives, many young people continue to rely on temporary emergency accommodations. Amid a surge in youth homelessness and unstable housing in Vancouver, our study examines young people’s “homing” strategies across time and place and temporary and more permanent living environments. We draw from an ongoing ethnographic study that began in 2021 and has involved over 70 interviews and 100 h of fieldwork with 54 young people aged 19 to 29. Our findings emphasize that feeling at home extends beyond having a roof over one’s head for an extended period of time. A focus on homing strategies—that is, the day-to-day practices, routines, and forms of sociality that generate a sense of stability and care even in un-homelike places—highlights how young people can be better supported in making themselves at home in the places where they live, potentially preventing returns to street-based homelessness. This study contributes insights to youth homelessness prevention policies, urging a strengths-based approach that aligns with young people’s needs, priorities, and desires for homemaking.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".