Editing and project management: Research and Writing:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
comprehensive review of research conducted on homelessness in Toronto during the last decade. The purpose of this review was two-fold: 1) to provide advocates and others concerned about homelessness with a resource that would enable them to easily access relevant research, and 2) to identify gaps in the research to inform future studies on homelessness in Toronto. For the purposes of this review, we have used a broad definition of homelessness as a continuum from absolute homelessness, to concealed homelessness, inadequate and unsafe housing, people in need of housing supports and those at risk of becoming homeless due to inadequate income and lack of affordable housing. The review indicates that though there is a substantial body of research on the issue of homelessness, specific research gaps remain. Research on housing issues of diverse ethno-racial groups of immigrants and refugees is partial and limited. The experiences of specific groups such as homeless seniors require more study. More research is needed on evictions, rent control, vacancy rates and public policy changes and its impact on homelessness.
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 | 0.051 | 0.242 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.021 |
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".