How Participants Experience London Housing Agencies’ Substance Use Policies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In London, Ontario, the number of opioid overdoses (OO) and overdose-related deaths (ORD) in the homeless population has increased rapidly in the last several years. Since 2018, the number of OO reported by London emergency shelter and housing agencies through the Homeless Facilities Information System has increased by 790%. In response to this, Western University was approached by several housing and emergency shelter agencies that were seeking consistent policies to reduce overdoses. In collaboration with those agencies, this community-based research project aimed to better understand the perspective of participants (i.e., service users) at these agencies regarding current substance use and overdose-related policies in place and how they impact their lives. We conducted sixteen semi-structured interviews with participants who use drugs and are precariously housed at the three participating emergency shelters and housing agencies. These three agencies each had unique policies and catered to different demographics. Interviews were analyzed using qualitative description methods, including content and thematic analysis, to identify broad themes associated with participants’ experiences at emergency shelters and housing agencies in London. The major themes will inform local policies related to shelter substance use and precarious housing. This project is part of a broader series of projects which aims to establish consistent and comprehensive drug policies that include perspectives from participants, volunteers, and staff in London’s housing and emergency shelter agencies.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it