MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402524922 · doi:10.3390/socsci13090486

Breaking Siloed Policies: Applying a Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) to Homelessness during Pregnancy in Canada

2024· article· en· W4402524922 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Barbara Chyzzy, Sepali Guruge, Kaitlin Schwan, Joon Lee, Stacia Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsRegent Park Community Health CentreToronto Metropolitan University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPovertyIndigenousPopulationImmigrationCriminologyPolitical scienceGender studiesSociologyDemographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amongst women and gender diverse (WGD) populations experiencing homelessness in Canada, one of the most vulnerable and understudied subgroups are those who are pregnant. A key barrier to accessing housing for this population are policies that lead to siloed sector work and complicated and inaccessible services. Frequent relocation and fragmented access to essential prenatal and postnatal support are the result. Experiences of homelessness for WGD people are distinct from that of cisgender men; the former tend to experience ‘hidden homelessness’ and are more likely to rely on relational, precarious, and sometimes dangerous housing options. The homelessness sector, its policies, and services tend to be cis-male-centric because of the greater visibility of homelessness in cis-men and fail to meet pregnant WGD people’s needs. This paper describes the findings from a one-day symposium that was held in Toronto, Canada, in June 2023 that aimed to address the siloed approach to housing provision for pregnant WGD people experiencing homelessness. A key focus was to understand how to incorporate a gendered and intersectional discourse into practice and policy. Adopting a gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) approach within policymaking can help illuminate and address why certain groups of WGD people are disproportionately affected by homelessness, including Indigenous Peoples, recent immigrants, racialized people, and those experiencing intimate partner violence, poverty, and substance use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0340.013
Scholarly communication0.0120.004
Open science0.0040.010
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial SciencesSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207