MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408613689 · doi:10.5206/ijoh.2023.3.19790

Formerly Homeless Residents of San Diego’s SROs Use Photovoice to Describe Their Living Experiences

2025· article· en· W4408613689 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peggy Peattie, Stacey Livingstone

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal on Homelessness · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotovoiceGerontologySociologyGeographyMedicineVisual artsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Residents of single room occupancy units (SROs) in San Diego, California, USA who were formerly homeless employed Photovoice (Wang & Burris, 1997) to describe how they feel about their current living situations and were then interviewed about this experience as well as the significance of the images they captured. A visual critical ethnographic approach (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2016; Peattie, 2022) was used to analyze interview transcripts from 14 participants. Interviews revealed three primary themes related to the images themselves: Photovoice allowed participants to produce liberatory insights about their housing and themselves; visually documenting aspects of their living spaces enabled participants to critically analyze housing management systems; and engaging in photography allowed participants to reflect on pivotal moments in their life journeys. Interviews additionally revealed three themes related to engagement with Photovoice: Photovoice empowered participants to create emancipatory narratives; inspired civic engagement; and provided a therapeutic means of communication. This study lends credence to Photovoice as a tool of empowerment and offers valuable information for providers and policymakers in their quest to design more supportive and affirming assistance for individuals re-entering housing through SROs.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.322
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal on HomelessnessSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207