“Everyone here [is] a customer”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the implementation of a harm reduction pilot project in a Canadian permanent supportive living facility for older people with experiences of homelessness (OPEH). Nearing the conclusion of the intervention, two nominal group technique (NGT) sessions were facilitated to identify key learnings from the project. The key learnings informed a secondary analysis of qualitative interviews with stakeholders from health and social services as well as with residents and staff at the intervention site. Participants stressed the positive impacts of their participation in co-designing the harm reduction programming throughout the intervention lifecycle, which enhanced the relationship between frontline care providers and OPEH residents. A major identified barrier to implementation of the programming was the underlying organizational accountabilities to funding bodies, which were perceived to be influenced by business decisions that emphasized maximizing efficiency and minimizingCritical Social Work, 2024 Vol. 25, No. 2 institutional liability. The competing priorities of the organization and OPEH care recipients resulted in a breakdown in communication and trust. We situate these tensions within the broader neoliberal policy framework that shapes organizational decision making and priority setting. The findings of this research will be useful for frontline care providers (of both health and social services) and program administrators in harm reduction settings looking to enhance harm reduction service delivery for OPEH. The findings point to a disconnect between the policies currently governing public service provision and the ethics in which harm reduction is grounded, while speaking to opportunities to challenge these conditions in research and practice contexts.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".