Understanding Data Usage when Making High-Stakes Frontline Decisions in Homelessness Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frontline staff of emergency shelters face challenges such as vicarious trauma, compassion fatigue, and burnout. The technology they use is often not designed for their unique needs, and can feel burdensome on top of their already cognitively and emotionally taxing work. While existing literature focuses on data-driven technologies that automate or streamline frontline decision-making about vulnerable individuals, we discuss scenarios in which staff may resist such automation. We then suggest how data-driven technologies can better align with their human-centred decision-making processes. This paper presents findings from a qualitative fieldwork study conducted from 2022 to 2024 at a large emergency shelter in Canada. The goal of this fieldwork was to co-design, develop, and deploy an interactive data-navigation interface that supports frontline staff when making collaborative, high-stakes decisions about individuals experiencing homelessness. By reflecting on this fieldwork, we contribute insight into the role that administrative shelter data play during decision-making, and unpack staff members' apparent reluctance to outsource decisions about vulnerable individuals to data systems. Our findings suggest a ''data-outsourcing continuum,'' which we discuss in terms of how designers may create technologies to support compassionate, data-driven decision-making in nonprofit domains.
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 | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".