Current Evidence and Recommendations for Further Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter reviews the current state of evidence on Critical Time Intervention (CTI), methodological strengths and challenges, and recommendations for future research. The authors discuss the effectiveness of CTI and its adaptations by summarizing the evidence derived from experimental and quasi-experimental studies of its impact conducted in the United States, Brazil, Canada, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom and Europe. The review suggests that CTI has shown a consistent positive impact on reducing homelessness and enhancing service engagement across diverse populations and settings, while impacts in other domains are uneven. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the methodological challenges of the existing evidence and several recommendations for future research. These include factors associated with effective program implementation and the need to understand for whom and under what conditions CTI is most effective.
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 | 0.059 | 0.181 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.095 | 0.022 |
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".