MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414880715 · doi:10.1080/13549839.2025.2566518

Evidence-informed recommendations for municipal supports of people experiencing homelessness during extreme weather events

2025· article· en· W4414880715 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Miho Trudeau, Laura Nieuwendyk, Ana Paula Belon, Candace I. J. Nykiforuk

Bibliographic record

VenueLocal Environment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsExtreme weatherClimate changeVulnerability (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Municipalities are increasingly faced with a growing climate justice issue: the intersection of rising housing vulnerabilities (e.g. increased rates of homelessness) and climate hazards (e.g. extreme weather events), which disproportionately impact people experiencing homelessness (PEH). Despite the strong role that municipalities have to play in supporting PEH during extreme weather events, municipal interventions remain poorly researched. To investigate such interventions, this paper reports on a broad policy scan of 40 Canadian and international municipalities and a peer-reviewed and practice-based literature review of interventions to support PEH during three recurring extreme weather events: extreme heat, extreme cold, or poor air quality associated with wildfire smoke. Findings show that interventions should focus on preventive responses, such as housing strategies, and also include adaptive crisis management strategies such as the provision of accessible and inclusive shelter accommodations and warming or cooling spaces; communication strategies; outreach services; and the provision of resources. This paper shares key recommendations surrounding the implementation and development of these strategies. Recommendations include factors to consider within emergency sheltering spaces, considerations for communication methods and outreach services, and processes significant to the development of contextually relevant and responsive supports, such as the usage of participatory processes with PEH when developing interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.200
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.200
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0090.009
Research integrity0.0130.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.006

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLocal EnvironmentSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207