Towards youth-centered information practices to support youth facing homelessness: experiences and perspectives of youth with lived experience and community service providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Youth face a difficult journey once they become homeless, often struggling to navigate multiple systems. Information collection and use is a starting point to support youth accessing services. We aimed to better understand the experiences of information collection and use when accessing homelessness services for Canadian youth (18-30 years old) who have lived experience of homelessness and the community service providers (CSPs) serving them.Method We conducted five focus groups with 30 youth participants and eight semi-structured interviews with 15 CSPs. Using thematic analysis, we analyzed transcripts for youth and CSP sessions separately and combined the results. We sought an understanding of their “co-experience” (a flow of information from youth that is shared and given meaning by CSPs), looking for commonality, discrepancies, and unique findings between the group’s experiences.Results The relationship building between youth and CSPs is critical to information collection and use. We identified themes on safety during the information collection process, making information collection more youth-centered, youth-informed consent in information collection and use, and rethinking information to support youth over their journeys.Conclusion The findings suggest solutions around ethical, human-centered design in information collection and use to better serve the complex needs of youth facing 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".