Prevalence of homelessness in Russia: an assessment based on a retrospective survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper assesses the prevalence of street and hidden homelessness in Russia. Based on the representative survey “Person, Family, Society – 2023” (N = 9508 people) it was revealed that 4.6% of the adult population had experienced street homelessness, while 13.5% had faced hidden homelessness. 4.8% of respondents reported about suffering from homelessness for more than 1 year, including 2.5% with experience of more than 3 years of homelessness. Street homelessness problem is primarily for males, however the prevalence of hidden homelessness is high among women too. Factors such as male gender, low median income, and smoking increase the likelihood of homelessness in the past 10 years, while marriage, higher education, and children under the age of 18 in the household decrease this likelihood. Federal district of residence and type of settlement are not correlated with the experience of homelessness. Frequent alcohol consumption significantly increases the likelihood of street homelessness. Those who have experienced homelessness have unstable housing conditions with the expectation of ones future deterioration. They are more likely to live in communal apartments, hostels, and rented housing. The experience of homelessness is associated with lack of housing owned by the person. The experience of homelessness is closely related to feelings of loneliness and conflicts in the family. Homelessness is correlated with life dissatisfaction. Compared to several countries (Australia, Canada, European countries), Russia has a higher life-time prevalence of homelessness and longer average duration of homelessness. All this emphasizes the importance of housing market policies development and social protection of people vulnerable to homelessness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".