MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404960284 · doi:10.32920/27953379

Innovative Approaches to Community-Based Housing for Precarious Migrants and Refugees: A Policy Report

2024· preprint· en· W4404960284 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bridget Collrin, Nick Dreher

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeAusterityHospitalityRentingPolitical scienceAccommodationLatin AmericansEconomic growthTourismBusinessPoliticsEconomicsLawPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[para. 1]: "In 2023, Toronto’s Shelter, Support and Housing Administration reported a 440 per cent increase in refugee claimants in the shelter system since 2021 (City of Toronto 2023). In Canadian cities like Toronto, demanding conditions for rental applications and structural barriers negatively affect the ability of refugee claimants to secure housing. These challenges, plus limited financial resources, social networks, cultural familiarity, and official language familiarity, place refugee claimants at particular risk of homelessness (Kissoon 2010; Sherrell, D’Addario, and Hiebert 2007). Austerity and state withdrawal from housing provision has led to similar housing crises in other cities in North America (Ngueita 2020), Europe (Meet et al. 2021), Latin America (Magliano and Perissinotti 2020), and Africa (Paller 2015). In response, local non-profits and community-based housing organizations (CBHOs) have assumed greater responsibility in supporting unhoused refugees. However, a critical knowledge gap exists in understanding how these community-based practices of hospitality provide holistic alternatives to accommodation for precarious migrants."

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0120.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.003

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 head0.332
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 topicHomelessness and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→