Feminist policy analysis of Newfoundland and Labrador’s provincial homelessness policies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Newfoundland and Labrador, there is no overarching policy addressing homelessness across the province. This study analyzes two municipal and one provincial plan addressing homelessness by using feminist policy analysis techniques such as frequency and discourse analyses, complemented by three interviews with policy makers and researchers. This research aims to uncover attitudes and assumptions about people experiencing homelessness within these policies. Specifically, to highlight potential consequences such as resources failing to address the unique needs of marginalized groups, including but not limited to, Indigenous people, women, and the 2SLGBTQIA+ community who are often overlooked in homelessness policy discourse. This analysis draws on feminist, queer, and Indigenous theorizations of homelessness, which advocate for a reframed understanding of homelessness as something people can experience in various dimensions. Concepts such as epistemic injustice, the construction of (in)visibility, and affect help frame the analysis. The research concludes that 2SLGBTQIA+, refugee, and racialized experiences of homelessness are rendered invisible in each of the examined policies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".