Residents’ perception of the quality and impact of different models of permanent supportive housing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the similarities and differences that residents perceived regarding the quality of the permanent supportive housing (PSH) model they lived in, housing features and support, other services received, residential stability, community integration, and quality of life. Based on a previous study (T1, N = 308), 60 Quebec (Canada) PSH residents were randomly recruited in 2023 (T2) for this mixed-methods study. Compared to other models, scattered-site PSH housed more women and younger residents with better perceived mental/physical health conditions, and at T2 more improved social conditions; community PSH offered more continuous support and a safer environment, while social PSH (a hybrid of the other two) included residents with more long-term residential stability. Scattered-site and social PSH may be more appropriate for individuals with greater autonomy, and community PSH for those with continuous needs. For the former, a safe living environment and access to the job market or to community involvement may be prioritized, while the latter may benefit from greater autonomy.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".