MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132873832

The Politics of Homelessness: Poverty, Policy, and Political Participation

2022· dissertation· W7132873832 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anna Kopec

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2022
Typedissertation
Language
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsWelfare stateWelfarePopulationState (computer science)IndividualismSocial policy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How do everyday interactions with the welfare state influence political participation? The policies individuals interact with dictate their relationship with the state. Policy designs, therefore, play a vital role in the inclusion of individuals into the welfare state as well as the political system. Policies have effects on how individuals participate politically, through the resources they distribute, the institutional arrangements they govern, and the messages they send regarding the deservingness of target populations (Pierson, 1993; Campbell, 2004; Schneider & Ingram, 1993; Mettler, 2005). How policy designs influence participation, and how different policies integrate to influence political participation and inclusion, requires further attention. An investigation of the relationship between policy and participation from the perspective of a marginalized population allows for a bottom-up examination of the welfare state (Michener, SoRelle & Thurston, 2020). Individuals experiencing homelessness are among the most vulnerable in western states and interact with several state appendages and services. In doing so, they advocate for themselves and others while interacting with multiple policies. In this dissertation, I describe a causal mechanism that connects the inclusivity of policy design and the interaction of multiple policies on the one hand, to political participation on the other. Policy inclusivity and participation are defined inductively. I present empirical evidence from a mixed method comparative study, which includes 118 interviews with individuals experiencing homelessness, service providers, and policymakers in Melbourne and Toronto. Both cities are located in liberal welfare states with means-tested and individualist policies to combat homelessness. Results from a quantitative analysis of national election surveys finds that there are complex relationships between policy, poverty, and participation. Qualitative interviews, therefore, add vital nuance to these quantitative findings and build the mechanism of policy design inclusivity. Even given failing and exclusionary housing, social assistance, and health policies, individuals experiencing homelessness participate and express their desire to bring about change. Investigating how and where individuals participate, as well as the policy designs that encourage or limit that participation, is therefore important to policy success and democratic inclusion. This research contributes to multiple bodies of political science and public policy literature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.027
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.423 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicHomelessness and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→