The impact of the Montreal At-Home project after 18 months, from the participants’ point of view
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The At Home Chez Soi (AHCS) project is a pan-Canadian study on homelessness and mental illness. This $110 million pragmatic randomized controlled trial was funded by the Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC) and began recruiting participants in October 2009 simultaneously in five Canadian cities: Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montréal, and Moncton.A set of narrative interviews was conducted on 45 randomly selected for a qualitative interview, 18 months after study entry, in order to understand possible differences between the two groups over the course of the study. In contrast with the quantitative measures, the qualitative data suggest more substantial differences between the housing first (HF) and treatment-as-usual (TAU) groups.Wellbeing, defined as a sense of “peace,” “security,” and the ability to live at their own “rhythm,” is a feeling that participants in the HF groups were more likely to mention in the 18-month interviews. Experimental groups were also more likely to say in interviews that they felt less stressed (15 % of HF vs none of the TAU participants sampled). Participants from the HF group were three times as likely as those in TAU to mention in interviews that their mental health had improved over the 18 months, four times as likely to say that they had reduced their consumption of prescription medicines, five times as likely to say that they had made new friendships, and six times more likely to say they had reconnected with family members.Four factors stand out among those to which participants attribute the success of the HF intervention: rapid access to stable housing, intensive long-term support by ACT and ICM teams, a non-judgmental attitude on the part of case managers, and regaining responsibility for decision making.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".