MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7070459418

Perspectives of homeless people on their housing needs and approaches to ensure success

2012· article· en· W7070459418 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueYork University Digital Library (York University) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDehumanizationDignityThematic analysisHousing FirstUnemploymentService providerPopulationWelfare
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently there has been much public discourse on homelessness and its impact on health and quality of life. Housing is a major determinant of health and strategies are sought to get people off the streets. For maximum success it is important to first determine accurately the needs of those to be housed. As they live their own situations, their perspectives should be considered to ensure success. This paper discusses the findings from a research study on perspectives of homeless people regarding their experiences of homelessness. The research question was: What supports are needed for homeless people to get off the street? The study discussed is qualitative, descriptive, exploratory. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with homeless individuals in a large Canadian city in 2005, regarding their needs and possible solutions to end homelessness. A thematic analysis was carried out on the data. Findings show that individuals’ experiences of homelessness deeply impact all aspects of their lives. Many barriers prevent the homeless from escaping the streets. The welfare system in place was often perceived as disabling and dehumanizing rather than helpful. Service provisions were frequently inappropriate and therefore unsuccessful. Those homeless for a long time fell into patterned cycles of shelter / street life, temporary employment / unemployment and sometimes temporary housing. Participants described the fragmented services provided as ineffective. They had many suggestions for strategies to avoid or escape homelessness. For service providers a power with rather than power over model of collaborative advocacy is proposed to serve this population more effectively, preserve / restore their dignity and invest resources wisely.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.147
Teacher spread0.122 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYork University Digital Library (York University)Same topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207