Rethinking homelessness: a scoping review of social constructions and meanings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Debates on defining homelessness have persisted for decades, with the hope that refined definitions might better address this complex problem However, with homelessness rates continuing to rise, there is a need to reexamine how the term is understood since definitions shape societal perceptions and neglecting social and structural factors risks framing homelessness as an individual failing rather than a systemic issue. Grounded in social constructionist and symbolic interactionist perspectives, this scoping review analyzed literature from Australia, Canada, and the United States to address two main questions: (1) How do definitions of homelessness reflect systemic inequality? (2) How do these definitions shape the identities of those directly affected? Findings were synthesized narratively, with a thematic analysis identifying themes. 95 articles were included in the review. Four key themes were identified: the material dominance in defining home, identity assassination, self-determination as a policy metric, and navigating space for homelessness. These themes highlight how definitions of homelessness are not neutral but shaped by societal values and systemic biases, reinforcing inequality through imposed labels, stigma, and misrepresented identities. This review emphasizes the need to rethink homelessness discourse, adopting language that reflects diverse experiences while challenging systemic injustices embedded in its historical and structural 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".