The influence of the residential environment on well-being and personal projects: Perspectives of young people living in public housing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public housing provides low-income households with affordable housing. The few studies of young public housing residents have focused on the negative aspects of these residential environments, such as the presence of economic hardship or substance abuse. Few studies have looked at the possible positive influence of public housing on the lives of the young people who live there. This qualitative study explores the influence of housing and neighborhood on the well-being and personal projects of young people living in public housing. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 young people aged 14 to 20 living in public housing in a large city in Quebec, Canada. A thematic analysis led to the identification of five themes that describe the components of the residential environment that influence young people's well-being and personal projects: 1) parks, playgrounds and nature, 2) services and activities, 3) privacy, 4) relations with the neighborhood; and 5) the quality of the built environment. Implications for environmental psychologists and for improving public policies and supporting the well-being of young people living in public housing are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".