What makes transitional housing in Manitoba unsafe for transgender people?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transgender people across Canada face high rates of housing insecurity and homelessness compared to people whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth. Yet shelters and transitional housing meant to provide temporary places to stay do not always meet the needs of transgender people. This community-based study asked what can make transitional housing safer and more comfortable for transgender people, with a focus on the Westman region of Manitoba. In collaboration with YWCA Brandon, the first author interviewed nine service providers who work in housing organizations or in service provision for transgender people in Manitoba, to learn about good practices from their perspectives. In the process we learned about the factors that make transitional housing and shelters unsafe and unwelcoming for transgender people; these factors are the focus of this article. We highlight barriers to access to existing transitional housing, including the prevalence of faith-based shelters, gender segregation policies and practices, intake and referral procedures that create risks for transgender people, and insufficient training for organization leaders. These findings are relevant to shelter and transitional housing providers and to allies and advocates for the well-being of transgender people in Manitoba and beyond.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".