The Social Planning Council of Sudbury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many people contributed to this project including homeless people, service providers and agency personnel, faculty members from Laurentian University, members of the community, and staff of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury as well as the Social Planning Council of the Region of Sudbury. It is important to recognize the vital contribution of homeless people in Sudbury. The project could not have been completed successfully without their participation and willingness to share the personal information upon which the count is based. Also important was the commitment to this project shown by the service providers and agency personnel who gave their time to gather the information for the Phase I count, participate in the survey of service providers, and/or attend a session to discuss the recommendations. The members of the Advisory Committee on Emergency Shelter were instrumental in initiating the study and providing feedback on the draft report. Special thanks are extended to the management and staff at Foyer Notre Dame House, Sudbury Action Centre for Youth, and the Sudbury Regional Police Service who assisted with the project by permitting researchers to accompany workers/officers on outreach activities or night shifts. In addition, the study could not have been conducted without the staff of the Social Planning Council who participated in a wide range of activities including liaison with community agencies, data
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.104 | 0.005 |
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".