Scoping Review on Homelessness in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to a 2020 Nanos Research poll commissioned by the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness, 72 percent of Canadians believe that ending homelessness should be one of the country's top priorities. Given that homelessness is a social crisis, it is important to establish what is currently known about the situation in order to develop innovative and effective solutions.\nWhile some studies have reviewed homeless for specific sub-populations such as street youth and homeless families, few have conducted a comprehensive large-scale scan of the literature pertaining to homelessness in Canada. Additionally, hardly any studies have examined how homelessness is measured in Canadian datasets from government agencies and homeless organizations.\nFor these reasons, this study offers a scoping review of both the peer-reviewed academic research on homelessness in Canada and the homeless datasets provided by government institutions and private organizations. The purpose of this report is to present an overview of the existing literature and databases on homelessness in Canada, as well as highlight relevant data gaps that must be addressed in future studies.
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 | 0.019 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.042 | 0.064 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".