MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The intersections of palliative care and homelessness in social policy: A content analysis of Canadian policy documents

2025· other· en· W7084067593 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalProvidence Health CareUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill UniversitySimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careContent analysisEthnic groupSocial policySocial careNational PolicySocial work

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Palliative care for people experiencing homelessness (PEH) is a social issue of increasing importance. Policymakers are best positioned to lead societal responses by naming the issue in policy documents, allocating resources to address palliative care for PEH, and creating frameworks or guiding principles to inform action. This study aims to examine how, if at all, policymakers in Canada are identifying and addressing the issue of palliative care for diverse PEH in policies and frameworks governing the palliative care and/or homelessness sectors. Methods We conducted a content analysis of 75 Canadian policy documents governing palliative care or homelessness for the presence of discussion of homelessness (in palliative care documents) and end-of-life (in homelessness documents). The level of discussion (no, indirect, minimal, significant), the jurisdictional level (municipal/city, provincial/territorial, national), and mention of intersecting identities were also recorded. Results Of the 75 documents analyzed, 42 contained no discussion of palliative care and homelessness, and only five contained significant discussions by explicitly identifying barriers, describing unique needs, and identifying competencies or innovative practices to promote access and inclusion. All significant or national level discussions were palliative care documents. Intersectional discussions of palliative care for PEH were found in 9 of 75 of documents, with ethnicity and Indigeneity mainly mentioned in palliative care documents, and older age and gender mentioned solely in homelessness documents. Conclusions There are critical gaps in Canadian policy documents governing palliative care and homelessness. Most policy documents fail to name or address the issues, with the gap most pronounced in homelessness documents, which contained no national level or significant discussions about end-of-life. Additionally, policy documents from both sectors seldomly discussed the unique needs and barriers of older, racialized, and/or gender-marginalized PEH at end-of-life. While competencies and service level solutions appear to be emerging within palliative care policies at the national level, policymakers from both sectors and across all levels of government must collaborate to address the unique needs of diverse PEH at end-of-life.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.525
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
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.286 · 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