MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415525615 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmen.0000445

Older adults experiences of transitioning to housing following homelessness from a perspective of ontological security: A secondary analysis

2025· article· en· W4415525615 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca Goldszmidt, Shu‐Ping Chen, Rebecca Gewurtz, Carri Hand, Carrie Anne Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS mental health. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOntological securityPerspective (graphical)Transition (genetics)Aging in placeQualitative researchLife course approachLived experience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Older adults are increasingly becoming unhoused. Once homeless, older adults are forced to navigate the transition to housing, an area which requires further research. We conducted a secondary analysis of qualitative research data using the theory of ontological security to explore the question: How do older adults experience trauma across the transition to housing following homelessness? During the analysis, we created a central essence 'When your entire world is upended you have to learn to live in a new reality', with three underlying themes: 1) My life got "pulled out from under me" and I am struggling to regain even footing; 2) I see reality clearly, "the system is broken"; and 3) The importance of social connection in rebuilding ontological security. Findings indicate the transition to housing presents an opportunity for older adults to rebuild ontological security, however only when they have access to housing that is good quality, deeply affordable, and accessible.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.371 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLOS mental health.Same topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207