Family Homelessness and Canada’s National Housing Strategy: An Uncomfortable Coexistence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation explores the political contexts of women’s homelessness and housing insecurity in Canada. The primary goal of this dissertation is to explain why women’s homelessness has been a persistent problem since at least the 1980s in Canada and why there is still no policy solution to prevent women’s homelessness despite significant research and advocacy on the ground. It argues that the root of this problem extends beyond any single policy choice. Instead, the root of this problem is found in governing logics that favour individualized, market-based solutions to systemic issues. Multiple data sources guide the line of argumentation carried across the chapters of this dissertation. This dissertation utilizes CMHC archived reports, federal budgets, federal Hansard excerpts, news articles from major dailies, 21 interviews with staff from women’s shelters and other advocates in the homeless serving sector, and two Freedom of Information Requests made at the federal level. Weaving these data points together, this dissertation provides a fulsome account of how we arrived at this point in history, in which the problem of women’s homelessness is misaligned with current policy approaches. This dissertation asks two questions. Namely: How does women’s homelessness fit into the National Housing Strategy? And how are women’s housing and homelessness service providers and advocates working within the National Housing Strategy? The chapters variously illustrate how family homelessness fits uncomfortably into the National Housing Strategy, what advocates are doing to combat this uncomfortable fit, and what work remains to move us toward a reality in which women-led households have a right to adequate housing.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".