MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7028954960

Hearing their voices: a qualitative study of the housing experiences of youth who have transitioned out of care through an independent living program in Winnipeg

2016· dissertation· en· W7028954960 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2016
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Governance and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchHousing FirstIndependent livingService providerSupportive housingPhoto elicitationFoster carePositive Youth DevelopmentContent analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study used the conceptual framework of emerging adulthood to explore the following question: “What are the post-care housing experiences of youths who have transitioned from care through the Independent Living with Supports (ILS) program offered by MacDonald Youth Services (MYS)?” In order to answer the research question, semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten youths who had aged out of care through the ILS program. Six service providers who worked with youth in and from care in various capacities and from various agencies were also interviewed. Content analysis was used to analyze the interview data. The youths’ housing experiences were characterized by multiple moves post-care, including homelessness in the case of seven youth participants. These findings mirror the literature. In addition, none of the youth participants indicated they were successfully connected to formal supports prior to leaving care...

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicCorporate Governance and ManagementFrench-language works237,207