Leisure needs of women of lived experience with homelessness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women of lived experience with homelessness are among the most marginalized and stigmatized groups in Canada. They live an unstable and uncertain life. For example, women experiencing homelessness face economic poverty, housing stress, unique health issues, and high risk of abuse. Leisure can provide support during these negative life events; however, little is known about the leisure needs and preferences of this population. This study explores the leisure needs of women of lived experience with homelessness. The research questions of the study are (a) how do women of lived experience with homelessness define leisure? And (b) what are the leisure needs of women with lived experience with homelessness? The research is based on secondary data that originated from a project conducted by professors at Vancouver Island University and Nanaimo’s Samaritan House staff. The original project utilized qualitative photbased methods, photo-voice interviews and a photo-elicitation group, as well as a community-based participatory approach to analyze the faith-based and leisure needs of women experiencing homelessness. Findings from re-analysis of the original leisure-centric data indicate that leisure is defined as participation and access to diverse recreational activities and is seen as a luxury for women of lived experience with homelessness. In other words, leisure needs are addressed after basic necessities are satisfied. Inclusion in the community and humane treatment are central leisure needs. Leisure needs are also intertwined with other social-psychological and spiritual needs. This study provides numerous suggestions to related institutions and policymakers for addressing leisure needs among the population of women of lived experience with homelessness in the areas of resources, space, programming, staffing, etc.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".