MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404854230 · doi:10.1080/10530789.2024.2433292

Housing first for people experiencing homelessness in Brazil and worldwide: an integrative literature characterizing similarities and differences

2024· article· en· W4404854230 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ana Carolina Peixoto do Nascimento, Annick Bórquez, Andréa Donatti Gallassi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Social Distress and the Homeless · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade de Brasília
KeywordsHousing FirstPsychologySociologyPsychiatryMental healthMental illness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Housing First (HF) strategies spread in countries in Europe, Australia, and Canada, comparing the effectiveness to traditional shelter for people experiencing homelessness (PEH). In Brazil, HF strategies were born for PEH with substance use disorders. This study compared Brazil's adoption of the HF model with international experiences. An integrative review was performed based on international peer-reviewed literature on HF for PEH available in Medline/PubMed, Virtual Health Library, PsycINFO, and Scielo. A search of HF strategies in Brazil was conducted to compare with the international strategies identified in the narrative review. Forty-five research articles were selected. The main findings and determinants of success of the HF strategies in the narrative review were on housing stability, quality of life, substance use, social connectedness, food safety, income and employment, intersectorality, financing cost synergies, and fidelity to the original model. The ten Brazilian HF strategies had similarities regarding the harm reduction strategy, housing stability, intersectoral policies, and strengthening social ties. Differences were in insertion in the labor market strategies, food safety, and fidelity to the original model. State policy is needed to rigorously address the urgent needs of PEH and evaluate their impact.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Social Distress and the HomelessSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207