Enhancing Equitable Access to AI in Housing and Homelessness System of Care through Federated Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The top priority of a Housing and Homelessness System of Care (HHSC) is to connect people experiencing homelessness to supportive housing. An HHSC typically consists of many agencies serving the same population. Information technology platforms differ in type and quality between agencies, so their data are usually isolated from one agency to another. Larger agencies may have sufficient data to train and test artificial intelligence (AI) tools but smaller agencies typically do not. To address this gap, we introduce a Federated Learning (FL) approach enabling all agencies to train a predictive model collaboratively without sharing their sensitive data. We demonstrate how FL can be used within an HHSC to provide all agencies equitable access to quality AI and further assist human decision-makers in the allocation of resources within HHSC. This is achieved while preserving the privacy of the people within the data by not sharing identifying information between agencies without their consent. Our experimental results using real-world HHSC data from Calgary, Alberta, demonstrate that our FL approach offers comparable performance with the idealized scenario of training the predictive model with data fully shared and linked between agencies.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".