“Somewhere you can go and keep warm and socialise for free”: investigating the impact of the St. Ann’s Warm Space on fuel poverty and social integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the winter of 2022, over 500,000 people visited a warm space in the UK. More than 7,000 warm spaces were set up by voluntary sector and faith groups, libraries, and local authorities to support people facing spiralling fuel prices and the cost-of-living crisis. This report presents the findings of a research project which focuses on a Warm Space established at St. Ann’s Advice Centre, Nottingham, UK. Given the limited knowledge of warm spaces, we aimed to understand the context in which they operate, the experiences of warm space attendees and to explore the role of a service provider. We found that St. Ann’s Warm Space was an example of good practice, which responded to people’s multiple needs in various ways. It provided a refuge from the cold and addressed many of the vulnerabilities individuals were facing related to food and shelter. However, the Warm Space not only provided attendees with useful resources and advice which helped them to physically survive the winter, but also provided emotional support and a supportive community. We discovered that it functioned as an important “social space”, delivering community-based services, and helping to alleviate loneliness and strengthening support networks.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".