Mechanisms to Promote Social Integration in a Temporary Housing Program for Older Persons Experiencing and At-Risk of Homelessness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Social integration-the degree to which a person is socially connected and engaged with other people-is a programmatic goal of supportive housing models and a predictor of successful housing outcomes among clients. Although research has examined social integration within permanent supportive housing models, minimal research has considered how social integration may be promoted within temporary housing programs (THPs), particularly for older persons. This study examines experiences of social integration, connection, and participation within a scattered-site THP for older persons experiencing homelessness in Vancouver, Canada. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with 11 current and former clients. Data were analyzed using a critical realist-informed thematic analysis method wherein theme development attempts to link events (e.g., accessing a service) and experiences (e.g., feeling supported). RESULTS: We identified 3 mechanisms: (a) technology access facilitates connection to individuals and organizations; (b) frequent communication with staff enhances feelings of social support and reduces isolation; and (c) accessible environments promote social connection and participation. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Findings offer novel insights into promoting social integration in THPs, such as creating "third places," and suggestions for supporting older persons transitioning out of homelessness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".