The Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Housing Checkup: A survey of the housing needs of children and youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Housing is a key determinant of child and youth health. A significant number of Canadian children and youth are living in housing need, but information regarding the housing status of children and youth in the Ottawa, Ontario, community is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To examine the housing status of children and youth accessing emergency health services at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (Ottawa, Ontario), and the factors associated with housing status. METHODS: Youth and families of children registered at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario's emergency department were offered a questionnaire. Affordability, adequacy, suitability and stability of housing were evaluated through self-reporting. Housing need was defined as an inability to meet one or more of these criteria. Associations among housing and household composition, demographics and weight-for-age percentiles were examined. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred sixty surveys were completed. Fifty-four per cent of respondents (663 of 1224) were living in housing need, including 33% of respondents (381 of 1166) who were living in unaffordable housing. Single-parent families (OR 2.82), families with six or more members (OR 2.51) and families who rented (OR 5.27) were more likely to be living in housing need. Children and youth with a primary care physician were more likely to be living in stable housing (OR 0.41). Unsuitable housing was associated with extreme weight-forage percentiles (OR 1.90). CONCLUSION: More than one-half of the children and youth in the present study were living in housing need. Health care providers have a responsibility to identify and understand the determinants of health of their patients, including housing, and to work for the improved health of their patients and their communities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".